Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Bruno Andrade Applicant
-and-
Home Depot of Canada Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Andrade v. Home Depot of Canada
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Bruno Andrade, Applicant Self-represented
The Home Depot of Canada, Respondent Bonnie Mak Waterfall, Counsel
1This is an Application filed on November 29, 2012, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment.
2In its Response the respondent seeks the dismissal of the Application on the basis that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because it was not filed within the prescribed timelines.
3The applicant filed submissions with respect to the issue of delay on January 31, 2013, and in in his Reply filed on April 23, 2013.
Decision
4Section 34 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.
5The applicant was employed with the respondent from March 10, 2010 until his termination from employment on September 30, 2011. There is no dispute that the application was filed almost two months beyond the prescribed time limit.
6Therefore, the Tribunal must consider whether the delay was incurred in good faith. As stated by the Tribunal in Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241, “the Code requires an individual to act with all due diligence, and file their application within one year, when they may seek to pursue a human rights claim.” It is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the Tribunal with an explanation as to why he did not pursue his rights under the Code in a timely manner.
7The applicant provides the following explanations for the delay in filing the Application:
a. That his illness worsened after his termination from employment, including becoming depressed;
b. That he had to assist his mother with her basic living needs; and
c. That he was having financial difficulties.
8The applicant has filed documents with the Tribunal including medical notes which support that the applicant was undergoing medical treatments and taking medication. He has also included in these documents information confirming that he was involved in at least two other legal proceedings.
9The medical evidence provided by the applicant does not support that he was incapable of filing the Application because of his disability. One of the notes states that the applicant underwent six weeks of physiotherapy and that he has significant pain when lifting any significant weight. Another note states that the applicant was seen on August 5, 2011, July 6 and 13, and August 10, 2012, for two separate issues. These documents fall short of establishing any debilitating condition which prevented the applicant from pursuing his legal rights under the Code. See Dionne v. Toronto (City), 2011 HRTO 317; Reid v. Ontario March of Dimes, 2009 HRTO 2207; [Downer v. Little & Jarrett, 2010 HRTO 992](https://www.canlii.