R.T. v. Toronto District School Board, 2014 HRTO 1450

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

R.T. by his Litigation Guardian L.D.

Applicant

-and-

Toronto District School Board

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: September 29, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1450

Indexed as: R.T. v. Toronto District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

R.T. by his Litigation Guardian L.D., Applicant

L.D., Litigation Guardian

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). A subsequent Form 4, “Litigation Guardian on Behalf of a Minor” was filed by the applicant’s mother on his behalf. The Application form was written by the applicant’s mother. On the form, the applicant’s mother alleges, “TDSB teachers, psyc[h]ologists and Trustees are constantly wrecking black people[‘s] lives including my family and I”. The applicant’s mother included more than 600 pages of materials, which consists of years’ worth of transcripts for both the applicant and his sister, materials from other proceedings, and a number of what appear to be letters written by the applicant’s mother over the years. It is unclear to whom these letters are written, since they are addressed to Sir/Madam.

2The Application was filed April 15, 2014, although it is dated February 17, 2013. It identifies November 13, 2012 as the date of the last event upon which the Application is based and, as a remedy, the applicant seeks $999,000,000.

3The Application has not been sent to the respondent for Response.

4The Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) to the applicant’s litigation guardian on July 25, 2014. The NOID stated that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination and the applicant did not address any good faith factors for the delay, and because a review of the Application and narrative fail to identify any acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code. The Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions addressing these issues.

5The applicant’s litigation guardian filed submissions dated August 8, 2014, in response to the NOID. She also submitted, again, documentation pertaining to complaints she had filed with the College of Psychologists of Ontario against various individuals who appear to be employed or provide services to the respondent; a letter dated August 5, 2014 raising concerns about a lawyer who appears to be representing the applicant in Children’s Aid Worker (“CAW”) matters; and a letter dated June 19, 2014 entitled “I did not ask for any help at all, Lawyers are there to start and end our lives by wricking and here you can see”. She also provided copies of various tax documentation and an approval for a second career.

6In her August 8, 2014 submissions, the applicant’s litigation guardian again claims that professionals are against black people and discriminating against them, such that black people are suffering. She raises concerns with the applicant’s lawyer in CAW matters, and submits that the respondent’s teachers and principals have harassed and abused her children over the years, regardless of which schools they attended. She submits, “We all desperately need your help please because the treatment is unfair and unjust…”.

analysis

7Sections 34(1) and (2) of the Code provide:

(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 subsection 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.

8Section 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 allegation 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, 2009 HRTO 1241.

9Due to the volume of materials filed by the applicant, well over 600 pages, it is not apparent what allegation is associated with November 13, 2012, the date of the last incident upon which the Application is based. There does not appear to be anything specifically identified in the Application or supporting materials pertaining to the respondent from this date. Instead, it appears that the last date referenced is from 2011 against the respondent, although admittedly the applicant’s litigation guardian claims that the harassment and discrimination is ongoing.

10The applicant’s mother does not specifically address the apparent delay in the submissions that she filed in August 2014. Instead, she reiterates some of her allegations, including that the respondent discriminates against black students.

11However, from reviewing the materials that the applicant’s litigation guardian submitted with the Tribunal since the filing of this Application, which includes June 2014 communications to her from the College of Psychologists of Ontario and the Ontario College of Teachers, it is clear that the applicant’s litigation guardian was attempting to pursue issues pertaining to her children, including the applicant, in other forum. The Tribunal has held that pursuing one’s rights without filing an Application has not, without more, been held 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.

12Furthermore, the November 13, 2012 date that was identified as being the last date upon which this Application is based could be in relation to a Reconsideration Decision that was issued by the Tribunal on that date. See R.D. v. Toronto District School Board, 2012 HRTO 2137, and 2012 HRTO 1606, which was the original Decision dated August 22, 2012, and 2012 HRTO 749 pertaining to an earlier Interim Decision dated April 16, 2012. This possibility is supported by the applicant’s mother’s answers on the Application in relation to section 16 “Important Documents You Have” in which she identified “Social Justice Tribunal ON” and made remarks such as “This is the way they treat my children and I till 13/12”, “this is the way I was treated 04/06/2012”, and other comments pertaining to discrimination and prejudice against black persons. However, even if the last date is the date of the Reconsideration Decision, that Decision was issued by the Tribunal. The applicant’s mother does not allege that this is another incident of discrimination by the respondent.

13Even if it was another incident by the respondent, the applicant’s mother has not provided any explanation as to why she waited from November 2012 to April 15, 2014, when she filed the Application.

14Finally, the applicant’s mother is presumed to be aware that applications before the Tribunal must be filed within one year of the date of the last incident. In R.T. v. Toronto District School Board, 2010 HRTO 1893, by Decision dated September 17, 2010, the Tribunal dismissed an earlier application filed by the applicant’s mother on his behalf against the same respondent on the basis of delay.

15Accordingly, I cannot find that the applicant has provided a good faith explanation for any delay in filing his Application and accordingly, his Application is dismissed. In light of this determination, the Tribunal need not address the second issue identified in the NOID.