Istvan Kovarcsik v. Perpetual Properties Ltd., 2012 HRTO 2094

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Istvan Kovarcsik

Applicant

-and-

Perpetual Properties Ltd.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: November 2, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2094

Indexed as: Kovarcsik v. Perpetual Properties Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Istvan Kovarcsik, 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 age and disability.

2A Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) was issued on August 16, 2012 indicating that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination. The Application was filed June 14, 2012. The applicant appears to have been terminated from his employment on March 18, 2011.

DELAY

3Section 34 states, in part:

(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.

4As stated by the Tribunal in Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241, “the Code requires an individual to act with all due diligence, and file their application within one year, when they may seek to pursue a human rights claim.” When filing outside this one year time limit, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the Tribunal with an explanation as to why the Application was not filed in a timely manner.

5In response to the NOID, the applicant submits that he was working with a WSIB return to work specialist and both he and WSIB were unaware that he had been terminated from his employment until May 28, 2012. On that date the Applicant alleges that he received notification, for the first time, that his employment had been terminated on March 18, 2011. The applicant filed this Application less than a month after he received the notification on May 28, 2012.

6Given the applicant’s submissions I am not satisfied it is plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith and or that substantial prejudice to the respondent will result if the Application proceeds. Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to deal with the Application.

7This is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of this Application. I am not seized of this matter.