Kidist Woldearegay v. Kitchener Waterloo Police Services Board, 2012 HRTO 859

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Kidist Woldearegay

Applicant

-and-

Kitchener Waterloo Police Services Board

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: April 30, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 859

Indexed as: Woldearegay v. Kitchener Waterloo Police Services Board

1The applicant filed an Application on February 10, 2012 alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of race, colour, place of origin and ethnic origin contrary to Human Rights Code R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code"). .

2In the Application, the applicant indicates in section 7 that the date of the last event was June 13, 2010. The narrative in section 8 and the remaining portions of the Application are largely devoid of any dates with respect to the police action. There is some description of difficulty with the applicant's place of work as a result of the respondent's alleged actions, which appears to have taken place more recently, but the Application does not name the applicant's employer as a respondent.

3The applicant attempted to file an Application concerning the same police actions in June 2010, but did not complete the Application as required by the Tribunal. The incomplete Application was returned to the applicant and the file administratively closed by letter dated October 29, 2010.

4The Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Incomplete Application and Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay on March 8, 2012 concerning the current Application. The applicant was directed to provide the missing information and submissions on delay by March 29, 2012. The applicant responded to that Notice by providing some of the missing information, but did not file any written submissions on the issue of delay. As of the date of this Decision, no submissions have been received and the time for doing so has passed.

5An application that is filed more than one year past the last incident of alleged discriminatory conduct may be barred by virtue of 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.

6As 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 he or she did not pursue his or her Code rights in a timely manner.

7The applicant has provided no information or submissions on the issue of delay. On its face, the Application appears to relate to events approximately 20 months prior to the date on which it was filed with the Tribunal. It is, therefore, out of time.

8The applicant has failed to provide any explanation for that 20-month delay. Given the absence of evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith, 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.