Maraj v. Erin Mills Mitsubishi, 2013 HRTO 475

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Aruna Maraj Applicant

-and-

Erin Mills Mitsubishi, Nauman Bangash and Andrew Chung Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: March 20, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 475 Indexed as: Maraj v. Erin Mills Mitsubishi

APPEARANCES

Aruna Maraj, Applicant Self-represented

Erin Mills Mitsubishi, Nauman Bangash, Andrew Chung, Respondents Andrew Chung, Representative

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sex.

2The respondent filed a response and a Request to have this Application dismissed for delay because it was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination. The last incident is alleged to have occurred on June 28, 2010. The Application was filed one year and seventeen days later on July 15, 2011. The parties made oral submissions in relation to the issue of delay by teleconference.

DELAY

3Section 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.

4As 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.”

5The applicant argued that she had been told by a lawyer that she had two years to file an application with the Tribunal. She contacted the Tribunal just before the expiry of the one-year limitation period and was told that the advice she had received was erroneous. The applicant indicated that she immediately set out to file an application in order to meet the deadline. The first package she sent to the Tribunal prior to June 28, 2011 was returned for insufficient postage. The applicant indicated that she was unable to re-send the package because of a postal strike which resolved on June 27, 2011. The Tribunal received the package on July 15, 2011.

6I have no reason to doubt the applicant’s submission that immediately upon receiving news that she was approaching the one-year limitation, she made her best efforts to file before that deadline.

7The respondent did not dispute that prior to the filing of her Application, the applicant’s counsel had corresponded with the respondents about the nature of the applicant’s claims and as a result, there is no evidence of substantial prejudice.

8Accordingly, the Request to dismiss this Application is denied.

9Both parties indicated a desire to resolve this Application. They both agreed to participate in a teleconference mediation with me in an effort to try and reach an agreement prior to hearing.

10The Registrar will set a half-day mediation by teleconference at the first available opportunity. If the Application is not resolved, it will proceed to hearing.