Gordon v. Erindale Medical Pharmacy, 2013 HRTO 544

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Gordon Applicant

-and-

Erindale Medical Pharmacy Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: April 3, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 544 Indexed as: Gordon v. Erindale Medical Pharmacy

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Michael Gordon, Applicant ) Self-represented

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 reprisal and discrimination in services on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, family status and marital status.

BACKGROUND

2The Application was filed on January 31, 2013, and indicates that the date of the last incident of discrimination occurred on June 5, 2011. It is not clear from the Application, and all the documents attached to it, what happened to the applicant that he alleges constitutes discrimination, although it appears that he was unhappy with a pharmaceutical product that he received from the respondent in Alberta.

3On February 25, 2013, the Tribunal issued to the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) because it appears the Tribunal has no jurisdiction for the following reasons:

a) the Application was filed more than one year after the incident of discrimination and there were no facts to indicate the delay was in good faith;

b) the events described in the Application do not appear to be connected to Ontario; and

c) the Application fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

4The applicant filed documents in response to the NOID, but they do not deal with the Tribunal’s above three concerns. Instead they provide further information about the applicant’s address and personal information. Perhaps they are meant to show that the applicant is now a resident of Ontario, but this does not appear to be relevant to whether the alleged discrimination is connected to Ontario.

DISMISSAL

5For the reasons set out here, I have determined that the Application is untimely and should be dismissed for delay. I therefore do not need to consider whether any alleged discrimination is connected to Ontario or whether the applicant can demonstrate a link or connection between the alleged discrimination and the Code.

ANALYSIS WITH RESPECT TO DELAY

6Section 34 of the Code provides that an Application must be filed within one year of the incident to which the Application relates, or within one year of the last incident in a series of events. Subsection 34(2) allows for a filing of an Application outside of the time limit if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any of the respondents.

7I am satisfied that the allegations against the respondent relate to something that happened more than one year before the date of the filing of the Application because that is what the Application indicates. The last incident is stated to be June 5, 2011, but the Application was filed almost one and a half years later.

8The Tribunal can accept an Application that is untimely if it is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice would result from accepting the Application. To show that a delay was incurred in good faith, the applicant must provide a reasonable explanation for his failure to pursue his rights under the Code in a timely manner. The applicant provided no explanation. I therefore find that the applicant has not met the onus on him to demonstrate that the delay in filing his Application was “incurred in good faith” as required under the Code.

9In the absence of a good faith reason for the delay, it is not necessary for me to consider whether substantial prejudice would result from the delay: Esanu v. Georgetown Men’s Non-Contact Hockey League, 2009 HRTO 579.

10The Application is dismissed.