Conway v. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 2012 HRTO 268

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Paul Conway

Applicant

-and-

Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: February 7, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 268

Indexed as: Conway v. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

1The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal of this Application on the basis that it is untimely. The applicant did not respond to the Request. For the reasons that follow, the Request of the respondent is granted and the Application is dismissed.

2The Application alleges discrimination by the respondent (“CAMH”) while the applicant was detained on its Medium Secure Forensic Units pursuant to an order of the Ontario Review Board. The MSFU treats individuals living with severe and persistent mental illness. The applicant resided at CAMH between August 2005 and June 2011.

3The Application alleges discrimination because of ancestry and disability. The allegations are as follows:

Complaint #1 – Music Therapy

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Queen Street site, discriminated against me as I did not receive an equal opportunity to access music therapy as other clients. People of other colours were given the opportunity to make music tapes and listen to them while I was denied this opportunity.

Since 2005, I asked to attend music therapy and make tapes. I really pushed the issue in 2008 when I was on unit 3-3. [The manager] informed me that she made the request but I never heard anything further about music therapy.

Complaint #2 – Native Services

I am part Metis and I requested native services while I was at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH). In September 2009, I met with [a staff person] regarding accessing native services when I was at CAMH. It was agreed that [the staff person] would come back to visit me and possibly bring a native elder to meet me. [The staff person] did not contact me again and there is no evidence that there was any follow up to my request. In September 2010, it was noted in my record that I did not want native services. This statement is incorrect. It feels as if part of me was left out and my native heritage was being disregarded. CAMH did not see me as native and provide me with appropriate services.

4In the Application, filed on September 2, 2011, the applicant identifies the last incident of alleged discrimination as taking place on September 9, 2010.

5Sections 34 (1) and (2) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, read as follows:

34. (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 my view, the Application has not been filed within a year of the last alleged incident of discrimination to which it relates. The applicant alleges that requests he made for services between 2005 and 2009 were not acted upon. It appears that what he defines as the last incident was a notation in his file. However, this is not an incident of alleged discrimination as interpreted by the Tribunal. See Mafinezam v. University of Toronto, 2010 HRTO 1495. Accordingly, I find that the Application was not filed within one of year of the incident or last in a series of incidents to which it relates.

7The Applicant did not file any submissions in response to the Request for Order and has given no reasons why he says the delay was incurred in good faith. I cannot find good faith in these circumstances.

8The Application is dismissed on the basis that it is untimely, and therefore outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.