HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ann Sinha
Applicant
-and-
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Sherry Liang
Indexed as: Sinha v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
1This is an Application filed on November 23, 2011 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).
2On March 19, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, in which it directed the applicant to provide submissions explaining the delay in filing the Application. The applicant filed submissions on April 13, 2012. She submits that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred on November 23, 2010, and that she was fired from her employment because of her race, colour, sex (pregnancy), and/or ethnic origin.
3An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondents, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. This includes a decision to dismiss for delay. See Battaglia v. Maplehurst Correctional Complex, 2009 HRTO 1167.
4Section 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.
5Based on the information provided by the applicant, and a review of the Application, it is not plain and obvious to me that the Application was filed more than a year after the last incident of discrimination or last incident in a series of incidents. Consequently the Tribunal will continue, at this point, to process the Application.
6The Tribunal shall serve the Application and a copy of this Interim Decision on the respondent. This is not a final decision with respect to the issue of whether the Application or part of it is barred by section 34 of the Code. If the respondent takes the position that the Tribunal should not accept the Application or part of it because of delay, the parties may be required to address this issue.
7I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto this 24^th^ day of April, 2012.
”signed by”________________
Sherry Liang
Vice-chair