Lourie v. Metro Ontario Inc., 2013 HRTO 1016

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Isaac Lourie

Applicant

-and-

Metro Ontario Inc. and Rusty Running

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: June 7, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1016

Indexed as: Lourie v. Metro Ontario Inc.

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging reprisal and discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, ancestry and gender.

2The alleged discrimination took place on March 30, 2012, and the Application was filed on March 31, 2013, over one year later. On April 22, 2013, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Incomplete Application And Notice of Intent to Dismiss to the applicant. The portion of the Notice that contained the Notice of Intent to Dismiss warned that the Application may be dismissed because it is outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction because of delay.

3The applicant provided documents to complete the Application, but did not respond to that part of the Notice that contained the Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

DELAY

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.

5To have been filed within one year, the Application would have to have been filed within one year of March 30, 2012. I note that March 29, 2013 was a holiday, Good Friday, and the Tribunal's office was closed.

6Rule 1.10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedures provides how time is to be calculated:

When the time for doing an act expires on a holiday, the act may be done on the next day that is not a holiday.

7Given that the last day the Application could have been filed to be timely was a holiday, and given that the Application was filed on Sunday, March 31, 2013 so that it was received by our office by the next day after the last day that would have been within one year of March 30, 2012, it is not plain and obvious to me that the Application is untimely.

NEXT STEP

8The Tribunal shall deliver the Application to the respondents with the applicant's personal contact information removed as per the request of his counsel.

9I am not seized.