Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
BETWEEN:
Richard Coleman Applicant
-and-
Responsible Gambling Council of Ontario, Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Finance Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: May 9, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 782 Indexed as: Coleman v. Responsible Gambling Council of Ontario
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Richard Coleman, Applicant Self-represented
1This is an Application filed on January 29, 2013 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 because of disability.
2On February 19, 2013, the Tribunal sent to the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application on the basis that it was not filed within one year of the last incident of discrimination.
3On April 25, 2013, the applicant filed submissions detailing that he had medical conditions which may have affected his ability to file the Application within one year of the last incident of alleged discrimination.
4An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondents, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. This includes a decision to dismiss for delay: Battaglia v. Maplehurst Correctional Complex, 2009 HRTO 1167 and Brooks v. North York General Hospital, 2010 HRTO 453.
5Based on the information provided by the applicant, it is not plain and obvious to me that his delay in filing the Application was not incurred in good faith. On the basis of the applicant’s assertions, which are at this stage unchallenged, the delay may have been caused by medical conditions affecting his ability to pursue his rights. Consequently the Tribunal will continue, at this point, to process the Application.
6The Tribunal shall serve the Application, and all of the materials sent to and received by the applicant and a copy of this Interim Decision on the respondents. This is not a final decision with respect to the issue of whether the Application is barred by section 34 of the Code. If the respondents take the position that the Tribunal should not accept the Application because of delay, the applicant may be required to provide medical evidence to support his inability to pursue his rights in a timely manner.
7I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 9th day of May, 2013.
“signed by”
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair