Qureshi v. Tarion Warranty Corporation, 2014 HRTO 1840

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Imran Ahmad Qureshi

Applicant

-and-

Tarion Warranty Corporation

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: December 30, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1840

Indexed as: Qureshi v. Tarion Warranty Corporation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Imran Qureshi, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1The applicant filed an Application on September 10, 2014, alleging discrimination in services on the basis of creed, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application contains allegations relating to events that took place in the period from 2011 to April 2013. Most of these allegations concern third parties and not the respondent.

2On November 4, 2014, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) the Application for delay. The applicant filed submissions in response to the Notice on December 2, 2014.

decision and analysis

3Section 34 of the Code 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.

4As noted in Corrigan v. Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board, 2008 HRTO 424, to determine that a delay in pursuing one’s Code rights was incurred in good faith, the applicant must provide a reasonable explanation for why he did not pursue his Code rights in a timely manner.

5The Application sets out a series of interactions with builders who the applicant alleges did not respect his religious views. He complained to the respondent, which apparently responded to him in March and April 2013. Subsequently, the applicant filed an appeal to the Licensing Appeals Tribunal, which rendered its decision on February 12, 2014, finding it did not have jurisdiction to deal with the applicant’s allegations of discrimination.

6As noted in both his Application and submissions in response to the NOID, the applicant’s wife filed an Application with this Tribunal over many of the same allegations in December 2012. Her matter is ongoing.

7The applicant takes the position that the last incident of discrimination occurred in mid-December 2013, when the respondent made an incorrect submission to the Licensing Appeals Tribunal that he and his wife had filed an application with the Tarion Ombudsperson. However, the applicant makes no attempt to link this alleged incident to his creed. When the Code refers to a “series of incidents” it is referring to incidents of discrimination, not simply interactions between the parties.

8The next most recent incident of alleged discrimination occurred approximately 17 months prior to the Application being filed. It is not necessary to determine whether this incident is actually an allegation of discrimination for the purpose of determining the issue of delay.

9Given that the Application was filed outside the one-year limitation period, it is incumbent on the applicant to provide a “reasonable explanation” for the delay. The applicant cannot assert he was unaware of his rights under the Code in light of his wife’s Application to this Tribunal and his appeal to the Licensing Appeal Tribunal, both of which deal with the very issues in this Application to the Tribunal.

10The applicant also asserts that he was “sick last year and under medical treatment.” He provides no further details, and certainly nothing to suggest that he was unable to file an Application with this Tribunal in a timely fashion. Indeed, in light of his assertion of his rights in the other process, it would be difficult for him to take that position. The applicant has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for why he did not file his Application in a timely fashion and it is, therefore, not necessary to address the issue of prejudice.

11The Tribunal is without the jurisdiction to deal with this Application given the delay and the absence of good faith. The Application is, therefore, dismissed.