HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dwaine Beckford

Applicant

-and-

Humber College, Keith Pua, Shaun Carson, Michael Kopinak and Jason Hunter

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: December 11, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1779

Indexed as: Beckford v. Humber College

APPEARANCES

Dwaine Altamont Beckford, Applicant

Self-represented

Humber College, Keith Pua, Shaun Carson, Michael Kopinak and Jason Hunter, Respondents

Brenda Bowlby, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application, filed March 14, 2014, alleges discrimination with respect to services because of race contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The respondents deny having discriminated against the applicant contrary to the Code.

3On August 21, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) directing that a summary hearing be convened in this matter. It noted that there was an issue with respect to delay and also as to whether the applicant would be able to establish a link to the ground of discrimination alleged and the respondents’ alleged actions. It directed that at the summary hearing, the applicant would proceed first and would make argument about why the Application should not be dismissed on the basis of delay or as having no reasonable prospect of success, and instructed him to point to evidence upon which he would rely to establish a link between the ground of discrimination cited and the respondents’ alleged actions.

4The summary hearing convened on November 18, 2014 and the parties provided their submissions.

BACKGROUND

5The applicant was a student in the Police Foundations program at Humber College (the “college”). The individual respondents are employees of the college.

6He alleges that on May 30, 2012, security officers from the college came to find him in one of his classes, and advised that they wanted to speak to him regarding a complaint about him by a fellow student. In his Application, he recounts some of his interactions with the fellow student, including one interaction where he alleges she pulled on his clothing, ripping it and he asserts that this was an assault. He states that previous interactions with this student had resulted in security officers at the college advising him and the other student not to have further communication with each other at school. He asserts that on May 30, 2012, the security officers had come to speak to him regarding her complaint about two emails she said she received from him. He alleges that the security guards advised him that the emails would be investigated, sent him home and told him he was not to have any contact with her. He alleges that he subsequently received a telephone call from another individual from the college and that the individual spoke to him in a way which he found demeaning. He asserts that the individual told him that the police may become involved, even if the fellow student did not press charges, as the applicant had breached the college’s Code of Conduct. In his Application, he denies having been the author of the emails.

7He alleges that on May 31, 2012, he received a telephone call from a police officer, stating that security at the college had called regarding an incident between the applicant and the fellow student and that they would be taking a statement from the fellow student. He asserts that the police asked him to provide a statement also. He asserts that he did not attend at the police station immediately, but that he went after having spoken with a police officer who told him he would be arrested for criminal harassment if he did not attend. He alleges that he asked if the fellow student was pressing criminal charges but that the police officer advised that the police would do their own investigation and charge him if they saw fit. He alleges that the police officer stated that the applicant “knows how the system works” and asserts that this was said to him due to his race.

8The applicant alleges that he did not hear anything further from the college until he contacted them to find out what was happening. He states that a hearing at the college was to have taken place within one week of his suspension from school, but that he did not have a hearing until June 20, 2012. By that time, he had been arrested and charged by the police with “criminal harassment communicate”. He alleges that when he did meet with a dean at the college, it was not the dean he should have met with and that the dean asked him a number of questions about his relationship with the fellow student. He alleges that the questions asked indicate that the dean was trying to make the fellow student out to be a victim and trying to make him out to be “the big bad hungry beast that was out to devour her”. He alleges that this was due to his race.

9He asserts that he received the results of his hearing on June 22, 2012, and that the college’s decision was to suspend him for one year, until May 1, 2013. He alleges that he submitted a letter appealing the decision on July 6, 2012, and that he was told he would have a response in 7 days, but that by July 19, 2012, he had still received no response. He alleges that the next step would have been to bring his case “before an independent panel of individuals who would review the fact”, but states that he believes that he had been the victim of discriminatory attitudes throughout his appeal and does not indicate that he pursued the matter at the college.

10The applicant indicates in his Application that the date of the last event of discrimination was January 28, 2014. He states that January 28, 2014 was the date of his criminal trial, and that on that date the charges were withdrawn by the Crown.

11The applicant alleges that the criminal charges were originally laid when the college “went over the alleged victim’s head” and called the police. He alleges that race “played a huge factor in the way I was treated” and asserts that had he been a Caucasian student, the college would not have “been so fast to call the police on me” over what he asserts was a small matter.

12At the summary hearing in this matter, the applicant repeated much of what is in his Application. He asserted that the school system in Canada is racist, and it is obvious that the respondents’ actions were related to his race. He asserted that the college simply should have advised the fellow student to call the police herself if she felt threatened.

13With respect to delay, at the summary hearing, the applicant asserted that he did not file an Application in a timely fashion because he did not know about human rights. He also stated that he transferred to another college and that he has been busy going back and forth to school and going to court regarding the above-noted criminal charges. He also stated that he experienced “a bit of depression” and psychological stress. He stated that had he been weak, the events would have had a greater impact on him, but that he is doing well at another college.

14The respondents deny having discriminated against the applicant. It is their position that the information they received from the applicant’s fellow student led them to conclude that the applicant was harassing her and that the college had to take steps to stop his conduct in order to comply with its obligations under the Code. Further, they assert that the Application is untimely as the allegations against the respondents relate to events which ended in July 2012, when the applicant’s appeal was denied.

15The respondents submitted that the last event in which they were involved was either June 22, 2014, when the college provided the applicant with the college’s decision to suspend him, following the June 20, 2012 hearing, or July 19, 2012, when they state the college wrote to him denying his appeal. The applicant denies having received the July 19, 2012 correspondence. The respondents submitted that the last date of any action on their part was July 19, 2012, and that the Application is untimely.

16The respondents submitted that the applicant’s excuse of not knowing about human rights legislation is not believable, given his assertion that he knows about legal processes. They submitted that the Tribunal has not accepted ignorance of human rights legislation as a good faith explanation for delay. Further, they noted that though the applicant asserts that he experienced a “bit of depression” and psychological stress, he has been able to continue his studies and it cannot be concluded that he was unable to file an Application in a timely fashion. Finally, they noted that the applicant has pointed to no objective medical evidence which would establish that he was unable to carry on his “life activities”.

17The respondents also submitted that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant previously admitted to having sent the emails to the fellow student, which they assert meet the test of sexual harassment. They submitted that there are “elements of violence” in the emails and that the applicant has not been able to point to any evidence upon which he would be able to rely to relate their actions in the face of the complaint regarding these emails, to the applicant’s race. Without such a link, they submitted that the Application must be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

DECISION

18This Application is dismissed on the basis that it is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction due to delay.

19Section 34 states, in part:

(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.

20Though the applicant has indicated that January 28, 2014 was the date of the last event of discrimination, there was no alleged action by the respondents on that date. The date relates merely to the decision by the Crown not to continue to pursue criminal charges against the applicant.

21While the applicant submits that the college should not have contacted the police regarding his fellow student’s complaint about him, and though he submits that the college bears responsibility for the fact that criminal charges were laid against him, his last allegation about actions by any of the respondents dates from June 22, 2012, when he states he received the college’s decision to suspend him, following his June 20, 2012 hearing. Even at its highest, though the applicant denies having received an answer to his appeal, the last action of any of the respondents relating to the applicant’s allegations would have been the college’s July 19, 2012 letter to the applicant. For an allegation to be timely, it would have to relate to events in the one year period prior to March 14, 2014, when the applicant filed this Application. Any allegation relating to the college’s final action, on either June 22, 2012 or July 19, 2012, is untimely.

22As stated by the Tribunal at paragraph 24 in Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241, “the Code requires an individual to act with all due diligence, and file their application within one year, when they may seek to pursue a human rights claim.” When filing outside this one year time limit, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the Tribunal with an explanation as to why he did not pursue his rights under the Code in a timely manner.

23The Tribunal has no authority to accept even brief delays beyond 12 months, unless good faith has been established. This is because the Tribunal’s power to hear and determine human rights applications is based on the Code and the Code clearly states, in section 34(2), that an applicant may not apply to the Tribunal more than a year after the last event giving rise to the application unless the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith.

24The applicant bears the onus of proving that the delay was incurred in good faith and must provide a reasonable explanation as to why he did not pursue his rights under the Code in a timely manner.

25The applicant asserted that he did not know “about human rights”. The Tribunal has found that ignorance of one’s rights will not be sufficient to establish that delay in filing an application was incurred in good faith unless the applicant can establish that he had no reason to make timely enquiries about his rights under the Code. See for example Lutz v. Toronto (City), 2009 HRTO 1137. There is nothing before me to suggest that the applicant did not have reason to make such timely enquiries and I do not find that his assertion that he was unaware of his rights establishes a good faith explanation for his delay in filing the Application.

26The applicant also submitted that he was very busy due to attending at school and at criminal court. He has not established a good faith explanation for why he was unable to file his Application with the Tribunal within the one year period. The fact that the applicant had other commitments is not, without more, a good faith explanation for his delay.

27Finally, the applicant submitted that he experienced a “bit of depression” and psychological stress. He also submitted that if he had been weak, he would not have been able to go on to have the success he has enjoyed at school since leaving this college. The applicant does not appear to argue that depression and psychological stress made him unable to file an application with the Tribunal within a one year period. In fact, he has indicated that he was able to continue successfully with his studies. In these circumstances, I am not persuaded that he has established that he was unable to file his Application with the Tribunal in a timely fashion for medical reasons.

28In dealing with requests that Applications be considered outside the one-year limitation period the Tribunal has set a fairly high onus on applicants to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. See, for example, Klein v. Toronto Zionist Council, 2009 HRTO 241. The mandatory one-year limitation period is consistent with the policy objective, expressed elsewhere in the Code, that human rights claims should be dealt with expeditiously. Thus, the Code requires an individual to act with all due diligence, and file an application within one year, when pursuing a human rights claim. Having considered the applicant’s explanations for his delay, I do not find that he has demonstrated why he could not meet the required deadline and I find that the delay in filing this Application was not incurred in good faith as required under s. 34(2) of the Code.

29As I have found that the delay was not incurred in good faith, it is not necessary for me to consider the question of whether anyone has been substantially prejudiced by the delay.

30Given my finding that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider this matter due to delay, it is not necessary for me to consider the parties’ submissions regarding whether this Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

31This Application cannot proceed under subsection 34(1) of the Code and is therefore dismissed.