Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
John Sukha Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: April 24, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 832 Indexed as: Sukha v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)
APPEARANCES
John Sukha, Applicant ) J. Atienza, Representative
Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as ) Represented by the Minister of Community ) Donna Petri, Counsel Safety and Correctional Services, Respondent )
1This is an Application filed on October 12, 2011, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The Tribunal, on its own initiative, directed that a preliminary hearing be held to determine whether the Tribunal was precluded from hearing the Application on the basis of delay, whether all or part of the substance of the Application had been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding, or whether the all or part of the Application should be dismissed on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed.
3A preliminary hearing by conference call was convened on April 13, 2012. In a previous Interim Decision, 2012 HRTO 737, the Tribunal denied a request for adjournment made by the applicant on April 5, 2012.
4At the beginning of the hearing, the recently retained representative of the applicant sought reconsideration of that Interim Decision. The request for reconsideration was denied.
5The representative of the applicant then sought a break of approximately one hour in order to consult with his client. That request was granted and the hearing convened an hour later, at which time I heard submissions from the parties on the issues outlined in the Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated January 4, 2012.
6For the reasons that follow, the Application is dismissed.
Delay
7Section 34 of the Code provides as follows:
- (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
8The Application centers around the applicant’s allegations that the respondent’s employees failed to provide service to him or provided less than adequate service for reasons relating to protected grounds under the [Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/r