Stephen Schaffer v. Conquest Vehicles, 2013 HRTO 1173

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Stephen Schaffer

Applicant

-and-

Conquest Vehicles, Jason Willis, Tim (Last Name Unknown) and Jeff Compton

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: July 4, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1173

Indexed as: Schaffer v. Conquest Vehicles

Written Submissions

Stephen Schaffer, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant filed this Application on March 14, 2013, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of race, sex and association with a person identified by a Code ground. The Application alleges that the individual respondents, including the owner, shouted at him and called him demeaning names. The respondents allegedly shouted the “N word” in the applicant’s face and said that the applicant had sexually transmitted diseases.

2In response to Question 7 of the Form 1, the applicant indicated that the last event was December 2011. In explaining the delay in filing the Application, the applicant stated that he was depressed, started re-living the events, and obtained counselling and prescribed medication for his depressed state. The Application also notes that the applicant was employed by the corporate respondent until December 2012.

3On April 2, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) on the basis that the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination. The NOID also noted that it appeared from the Application narrative that the alleged incidents failed to identify any specific discriminatory acts within the meaning of the Code.

4The applicant filed submissions on May 25, 2013 identifying which individual respondent carried out which specific act of harassment and noting that the respondent owner took no action to resolve the mistreatment. The applicant states that he was forced to take stress leave because of the hostile and poisoned environment and experienced anxiety attacks which resulted in him being held in a hospital for a week due to the emotional damage he suffered from work.

Decision

5Section 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.

6An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage before it is delivered to a respondent 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: Battaglia v. Maplehurst Correctional Complex, 2009 HRTO 1167. A decision to continue to deal with an application is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of the application.

7Based on the information in the Application and the applicant’s submissions, the actual date of the last alleged discriminatory event remains unclear. It appears the applicant was subjected to a poisoned work environment because of his race and sought the assistance of his employer to no avail. It appears that the applicant worked until December 2012. As such, at this point, the information and evidence that would be required in respect of the issue of delay is not fully before the Tribunal; however, enough information has been given that it is not plain and obvious that the alleged acts of discrimination do not come within the one-year time limitation of the Code.

8Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to process the Application. The Application, the NOID and the applicant’s submissions will be delivered to the respondents. The continuation of this Application in the Tribunal’s process is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction with respect to the issue of delay or any other jurisdictional matter.

9The Tribunal notes that the Application identifies the respondent owner as “Tim” and last name unknown. Rule 1.7(p) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that the Tribunal may require a party to provide any information or assistance for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before the Tribunal. As such, the Tribunal directs the respondents to provide the full name of the individual identified as the owner “Tim”.

Directions

10The Tribunal directs as follows:

i. The Tribunal will continue to process the Application;

ii. Along with this Interim Decision, the Tribunal will deliver a Notice of Application, a copy of the NOID and the applicant’s submissions to the respondents;

iii. The respondents are required to file their Responses (Form 2) no later than 35 days after the Tribunal sends a copy of this Interim Decision and the accompanying documents;

iv. The respondents are required to provide the full name of the individual identified as the owner “Tim”; and

v. The Tribunal may issue further directions with respect to any issues and/or may schedule future steps accordingly.

11I am not seized.