HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Sonia Cottle
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Police Service and Toronto Police Services Board
Respondents
decision
Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl
Indexed as: Cottle v. Toronto Police Service
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 in employment on the basis of disability.
2On October 4, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss ("NOID") because of delay. The Application refers to an alleged incident of discrimination when the applicant was told that she would not be reclassified to the position of Detective Constable due to her medical restrictions. The Application indicates that this occurred on June 16, 2004. The Application was filed July 15, 2011.
3The Tribunal does not have the power to consider claims filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination or last in a series of incidents of discrimination unless the delay in filing was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay (subsection 34(1) of the Code).
4The applicant provided written submissions responding to the delay issue. She indicates that: "It is my view that I demonstrated "good faith" based on my numerous attempts to have this matter resolved internally through the organizations chain of command, exhausting all the internal processes, waiting patiently for a response at each step of the way."
Decision
5In order to satisfy the Tribunal that the delay was incurred in good faith, an applicant must provide the Tribunal with a reasonable explanation why he or she failed to pursue his or her rights under the Code in a timely manner.
6Having considered the matter, I am not satisfied the delay in filing the Application was incurred in good faith within the meaning of the Code.
7It is apparent that the reason for the delay in filing the Application was because the applicant wanted to see if her issues could be resolved through the respondents' internal processes.
8Nothing prevented the applicant from filing a timely Application under the Code while she pursued her complaint internally.
9The fact that a person is pursing other avenues is not generally accepted as a valid or good faith reason for delay in filing an application: Cartier v. Northeast Mental Health Centre, 2009 HRTO 1670 at para 23 and, for example, Cain v. Toronto (City) 2010 HRTO 1176.
10The applicant has not provided a reasonable explanation for the failure to file a timely Application under the Code. I am not satisfied therefore that the delay in filing the Application was incurred in good faith. In light of this determination it is not necessary to make the further determination as to whether anyone has been substantially prejudiced by the delay.
11The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of January, 2012.
"signed by"
Keith Brennenstuhl
Vice-chair