HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Marie Mathurin
Applicant
-and-
Gateway Property Management Corporation
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl
Indexed as: Mathurin v. Gateway Property Management Corporation
1The applicant filed an Application on December 7, 2012 alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, gender identity, family status, marital status, age, receipt of public assistance as well as reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The applicant alleges, among other things, harassment and reprisal by the respondent during the time she lived in the respondent’s apartment building. The Application indicates that date of the last event of discrimination was January 10, 2011.
3Section 34 of the Code 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.
4On January 4, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) indicating that the Tribunal may not have jurisdiction over the Application because it appears as if the Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination and the applicant did not appear to have cited facts to constitute “good faith” within the meaning of the Code.
5On February 4, 2013, the applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID. The applicant indicates that in fact the last incident of discrimination was in February, 2012.
6At this juncture it is not plain and obvious that the Application has been filed more than a year after the last incident of alleged discrimination or that if there has been a delay that the delay was not incurred in good faith. The Tribunal directs that there be a half-day in person preliminary hearing on these issues.
7The respondent will be served with a copy of the Application, the NOID, the applicant’s February 4, 2013 submissions and this Interim Decision. It will be entitled to participate in the preliminary hearing, but will not be required to file a Response until the Tribunal issues a decision on the issue of delay.
ORDER AND DIRECTION
8The Tribunal orders and directs as follows:
(i) The Tribunal will schedule a half-day in person preliminary hearing on the issue of delay at which the applicant will have to establish that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred within one year of the filing of the Application or that if there has been a delay that the delay in filing was incurred in good faith; and
(ii) The Registrar will forward a copy of this Interim Decision, the Application, the NOID and the applicant’s February 4, 2013 submissions to the respondent.
9I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of February, 2013.
“Signed by”
Keith Brennenstuhl
Vice-chair