Mike Miroslav Iwachow v. The Corporation of the Town of Fort Erie, 2012 HRTO 1984

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mike Miroslav Iwachow

Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the Town of Fort Erie

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: October 19, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1984

Indexed as: Iwachow v. Fort Erie (Town)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mike Miroslav Iwachow, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of citizenship, place of origin and reprisal.

2On September 12, 2012, the Tribunal’s Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”). Rule 13.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that a Notice of Intention to Dismiss will be sent to an Applicant where it appears to the Tribunal that an Application is outside its jurisdiction.

3The NOID informed the applicant that the Application appeared to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination and that the Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent.

4The applicant responded to the NOID.

5An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. This has been established by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence (Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381; Morin c. Alliance de la function publique du Canada, 2008 HRTO 58; Hotte v. Ontario (Finance), 2008 HRTO 63.

6Section 34 of the Code provides:

(1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,

(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.

(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

7Having reviewed this Application and the applicant’s response to the NOID I am satisfied that it is plain and obvious that this Application is out of time and should be dismissed for that reason. I am also satisfied that it makes no specific allegations of discriminatory actions within the meaning of the Code by this respondent.

8Having reviewed the materials of the applicant it is somewhat unclear what the applicant is complaining of, except that as a result of the actions of a number of largely unnamed individuals, police officers, court officials and judges his life has been destroyed by the respondent. The application describes events related to a family business in which the applicant may have been involved (although this is not clear), which has been stolen by someone in a deal negotiated behind his back by a former mayor of the respondent and other individuals in the early 1980’s. The applicant also makes a number of allegations of mistreatment of his children by the police, judges and courts in the 1970’s and 1980’s. The applicant also relates how a number of wives ran way with his children There is also reference to a criminal proceeding in September 2005 wherein the applicant was found guilty of a trafficking in “prohibited firearms” and sentenced to jail by a judge who was inappropriately influenced by unnamed individuals including the police.

9Although the applicant states that the last of act of discrimination was in March 2012, a fair reading of the application describes events which occurred much earlier than that and describes no incidents within 12 months of its filing with the Tribunal on September 4, 2012. The Application is out of time unless the applicant is able to establish a good faith explanation for the delay.

10In this regard the applicant submits that the Tribunal should change the date March 9, 2012 to good faith. The applicant also submits that the last incident should be described as “permanently installed inhuman abuse for good to Iwachow’s family with 4 children for as long as they live in Canada”.

11Although it is not entirely clear from the applicant’s submissions he appears to be suggesting that there has been an ongoing effect to the alleged discrimination from the 1970’s and 1980’s. The Tribunal has held on several occasions that a distinction must be drawn between a continuing or recurring violation of the Code and one that has had a lasting effect. An otherwise untimely Application is not made timely because it is said that the effect of the alleged discrimination is ongoing.

12I am not satisfied that the applicant has offered a good faith explanation for the delay in filing this Application which relates to events largely said to have occurred, in most cases, many years prior to the Application being filed.

13I am also satisfied that the applicant has not articulated specific acts of discrimination in employment based on the grounds cited. The applicant does not identify his citizenship or place of origin, although he makes reference to hatred of persons from the former Czechoslovakia. Assuming that the applicant is or was a citizen of that country, there are no allegations made which connects any of the events described and the applicant place of origin or citizenship. I also observe that there is some vague sense of connection between some of the allegations and the identified respondent, there are also a number of alleged incidents and actions of others including police officers, customs officials, judges and other court officials who are completely unconnected to the identified respondent. I also have considered the fact that while the social area chosen by the applicant is employment, there is no suggestion that the applicant was ever employed by the respondent.

14For all of these reasons I find that it is plain and obvious that this Application is out of time and makes no specific allegations of discrimination in employment on the basis of the grounds claimed. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as being outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.