HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Joseph Boyer
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Transportation
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Boyer v. Ontario (Transportation)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Joseph Boyer, Applicant
Self-represented
1This Application filed on May 29, 2013 was filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of disability. The respondent has not been directed to file a Response.
2The applicant alleges that when he applied for a “D” class license that this resulted in the applicant’s “G” class license being revoked. These events commenced in 2010 and eventually the applicant’s driver’s license was reinstated on May 7, 2012.
3The Application indicates that the last incident of discrimination occurred on May 8, 2012, presumably when the applicant’s license was reinstated.
4On September 24, 2013, the Registrar issued to the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) on the basis that the Application was outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it was not filed within one year of the date of the last allegation of discrimination.
5On October 19, 2013, the applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID.
Decision
6For the reasons that follow I find that the Application was not filed within the prescribed time limit.
7Section 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.
8There is no dispute that the Application was filed beyond the prescribed time limit by at least three weeks based on the applicant’s allegation that the last incident of discrimination was on May 8, 2012. For the purposes of this Decision I have accepted this as the last alleged date of discrimination.
9Therefore, 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.
10The applicant alleges that he filed the Application late because he was traumatized and in a state of shock. He states that the respondent suggested to him that submitting an application at the Tribunal would prove to be “fruitless”. Lastly, the applicant asserts that he was not aware of the time limit to file the Application.
11The submissions provided by the applicant do not support that he was incapable of filing the Application. Based on the applicant’s own submissions, the applicant has been dealing with the respondent for a number of years. The applicant has not established that he suffered from a 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; and Savage v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2010 HRTO 1360.
12I do not accept the other reasons provided by the applicant to be reasonable. In Lutz v. Toronto (City), 2009 HRTO 1137, the Tribunal relied upon a number of Ontario court decisions which considered what is required to establish that delay has been incurred “in good faith”. It wrote:
Delay has been found not to have been incurred in good faith where it was due to wilful blindness to the need to make inquiries about one’s rights: Webster v. Webster Estate, 2006 CanLII 22941 (ON SC), [2006] O.J. No. 2749 (ON S.C.). The courts have held that “failure to act in ignorance of one’s rights may, in some circumstances, amount to “good faith”. However, … it is not enough for a party who must establish good faith to say that he or she was ignorant of their rights. They must also establish that they had no reason to make enquiries about those rights.”
13In these circumstances, the fact that he may not have been aware of the time limit under the Code is not a reasonable explanation and does not demonstrate that the delay was incurred in good faith. The applicant simply has not demonstrated that he exercised any diligence in the pursuit of his human rights.
14I find therefore that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction with respect to the Application because it was not filed within one year of the last incident of discrimination and the applicant has not demonstrated good faith.
15The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of December, 2013.
“signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair