A.M. v. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2012 HRTO 258

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

A.M.

Applicant

-and-

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto and Sonia Tramontin

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: February 6, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 258

Indexed as: A.M. v. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

Reasons for Decision

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on August 5, 2011 alleging discrimination with respect to good, services and facilities because of race, disability, sex, family status, marital status and age. The respondents were not served with the Application, but did receive a copy of the Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) discussed below.

2In her Application, the applicant alleges that the Catholic Children’s Aid Society (“CCAS”) wrongly apprehended her infant son on August 28, 2008. Although her Application discusses later events, it would appear that the last incident of alleged discrimination took place on that date.

3The Tribunal issued a CAD on December 7, 2011 directing the applicant to file submissions on the issue of delay. The applicant was specifically directed to file submissions on the date of the most recent event of discrimination and whether any delay in filing outside the one-year time limit was incurred in good faith

4On January 4 and 11, 2011, the Tribunal received two faxed bundles of documents, which seemed to be solely composed of documents from other legal proceedings. In any event, these documents are not responsive on the issue of delay.

5In the CAD, the applicant’s attention was specifically directed to s. 34, which 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.

6In the absence of submissions stating otherwise, it is apparent on the face of the Application that the last incident in which the applicant appears to be alleging discrimination occurred on August 2008, almost three years prior to her filing this Application. She, therefore, filed this Application outside the one-year time limit set out in s. 34. Under s. 34(2), she may file if she is able to satisfy the Tribunal that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

7As noted in Corrigan v. Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board, 2008 HRTO 424, to determine that a delay in pursuing one’s Code rights was incurred in good faith, the applicant must provide a reasonable explanation for why she did not pursue her Code rights in a timely manner. The Applicant has provided no explanation, reasonable or otherwise.

8Given the absence of evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith as required under s. 34(2), the Tribunal is without the jurisdiction to deal with this Application. It is not necessary, therefore, to address the issue of prejudice.

9The Application is dismissed.