Oussama Yaldoka v. Waterloo Police Department, 2014 HRTO 1251

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Oussama Yaldoka

Applicant

-and-

Waterloo Police Department

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: August 25, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1251

Indexed as: Yaldoka v. Waterloo Police Department

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Oussama Yaldoka, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Application was filed January 13, 2014 alleges discrimination with respect to membership in a vocational association because of race, colour, citizenship, family status and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). It identifies “Sep 10 2005 – 2007 – 2008 – 2009 – 2010 – 2012” as the date of the last event upon which the Application was based. The applicant submitted a lot of material along with his Application, including family court materials, medical documentation, correspondence from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, Record of Employment, and material pertaining to what appears to be criminal matters.

2The Application has not yet been sent to the respondent to file a Response.

3The Tribunal has issued correspondence to the applicant since the filing of his Application as the applicant did not identify a respondent to his Application. This included correspondence dated February 20, March 18, May 8, and an email dated May 15, 2014 requesting the identity of the respondent. Following these, the applicant identified the respondent as well as the Chief of Police.

4The Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss letter dated June 30, 2014 in which the Tribunal stated that it appeared that the Application was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it was filed more than a year after the last incident of discrimination. The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to this issue.

5The applicant emailed submissions later on June 30, 2014. The submissions are rather disjointed and most is written as one sentence despite it being over 7 lines long. He submits that if there is information that is missing, he will correct it, and reiterates some of the concerns that he has with the police, his family law issues, and, again, self-identifies his background.

law and analysis

6Sections 34(1) and (2) of the Code state:

34(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.

7Section 34(1) is a mandatory limitation period established under the Code. The Tribunal has held in numerous decisions that if an applicant seeks to rely upon an untimely allegation, he or she must satisfy the Tribunal that the delay in raising the allegations was incurred in good faith pursuant to section 34(2) of the Code. The Tribunal has set a fairly high onus on applicants to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, while recognizing that there will be legitimate circumstances that justify exercising the discretion under section 34(2). See Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles Real Estate, 2008 HRTO 1241.

8The submissions that the applicant filed on June 30, 2014 do not address his delay in filing his Application, which was filed on January 13, 2014. From the materials that he filed along with his Application, it is clear that he has raised concerns in previous years on the same issues as those in his Application including, but not limited to, Professional Standards of the Waterloo Regional Police Service, the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, Canada Border Services Agency, the Queen, the Prime Minister, and the United Nations. Efforts to pursue one’s rights in other areas or forums without filing an Application have not, without more, been held by this Tribunal to justify a waiver of the one-year limitation period under section 34(2). See Gagne v. Maximum Mining, 2010 HRTO 689 at para. 12.

9Accordingly, the Application is filed outside the mandatory one year limitation period under section 34(1) and the applicant has not provided a good faith explanation as required by section 34(2) to explain the delay. The Application is dismissed.