HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Carmen Perron Applicant
-and-
Silo Co-operative Homes/Cooperative D'Habitation, Cory Johnson, Mike Olsen, Dianne Sigouin, Jackie Lavoie and Desneige Grenon Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson
Indexed as: Perron v. Silo Cooperative Homes/Cooperative D’Habitation Silo Inc.
APPEARANCES
Carmen Perron, Applicant
Grace Alcaide Janicas, Counsel
Silo Co-operative Homes/Cooperative D'Habitation, Cory Johnson, Mike Olsen, Dianne Sigouin, Jackie Lavoie and Desneige Grenon, Respondents
Kathleen Stokes, Counsel
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to occupancy of accommodation because of disability. This Interim Decision addresses two preliminary matters arising in this case.
Removal of Respondent
2In a Case Assessment Direction dated October 24, 2014, the Tribunal directed the parties to make submissions regarding whether Dave Boucher should be removed as a respondent to this Application. Both parties filed submissions indicating that Mr. Boucher should be removed as a respondent. In light of the parties’ agreement on this issue, Mr. Boucher shall be removed as a respondent to this matter and the style of cause amended accordingly, pursuant to Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (the “Rules”).
Delay
3The Application concerns the organizational respondent’s decision to evict the applicant, which decision was taken on November 22, 2012. The Notice of Application the Tribunal sent to the respondents, along with the Application, indicates that the Application was filed on December 2, 2013. Consequently, the respondents submitted in their joint response that the applicant filed the Application more than one year after the alleged incident on which the Application is based and that therefore the Application is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, pursuant to section 34(1)(a) of the Code.
4In her Reply, the applicant submitted that the Application was filed on November 20, 2013, by electronic mail. The applicant pointed to an e-mail message, dated November 20, 2014 at 3:17 p.m., that her counsel sent to the Tribunal with the Application attached and to the automatic reply message from the Tribunal confirming that the message had been received, also dated November 20, 2013 at 3:17 p.m. Consequently, the applicant submitted that the Application was timely because it was filed on November 20, 2013, within one year of the decision to evict her.
Analysis and Decision
5Section 34(1) provides as follows:
- (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.
6Rule 1.22 of the Tribunal’s Rules provides as follows:
1.22. Where a document is delivered by a party or sent by the Tribunal, receipt is deemed to have occurred when delivered or sent:
d) by e-mail, on the day sent or if sent after 5 p.m., delivery will be deemed to have occurred the next day
7In these circumstances, the Tribunal clearly received the Application on November 20, 2013 and I find that the filing date for the Application is November 20, 2013. It appears that the Tribunal did not process the Application immediately and assigned December 2, 2013 as the filing date in error. Consequently, the Application was filed within the one year time limit set out in section 34(1)(a) of the Code and is therefore within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Order
8The Tribunal orders as follows:
- Dave Boucher is removed as a respondent and the style of cause amended, accordingly; and,
- The Tribunal shall continue to process the Application.
9I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of December, 2014.
Douglas Sanderson
Vice-chair