Felix v. York Regional Police, 2014 HRTO 358

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Hans Felix

Applicant

• and-

York Regional Police and Ontario Crown Attorney

Respondents

decision

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: March 13, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 358

Indexed as: Felix v. York Regional Police

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Hans Felix, Applicant ) Self-represented

1This is an Application filed on November 4, 2013 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, citizenship, ethnic origin, gender identity and reprisal. The Application has not yet been delivered to the respondents and therefore no Response to it has been filed.

DECISION

2On February 7, 2014 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because it appeared that the Application may be outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction it being filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

3Sections 34(1) and (2) of the Code provide:

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.

4This Application is out of time. As indicated above this Application was filed on November 4, 2013 while the last incident of discrimination is said to have occurred on December 1, 2010. The allegations in the Application are difficult to follow but appear to relate to a number of incidents going back to 2004 involving a number of the applicant's employers. The allegations related to the identified respondents appear to begin in in November 2004 and conclude with a plea agreement in July 2005. The applicant then refers to a complaint he made to the Ontario Human Rights Commission in December 2006 which is related in some way to the issues with a former employer. The applicant then alleges further interactions with police officers and perhaps a Crown Attorney in 2007.

5The applicant then makes a number of allegations about having difficulty crossing the Canada-U.S. border because of an arrest and criminal charges which had been dropped at some point in 2008.

6The applicant then makes references to "tribulations" at the Tribunal related to prior Applications apparently raising some of these prior issues.

7Finally the applicant alleges that on August 7, 2010 when crossing into the United States he was accosted by an official of Homeland Security who asked him if he had ever been arrested or convicted of a crime. The applicant responded that he had been falsely arrested in 2004 and 2007 but never convicted. The applicant alleges that he and the border official agreed that in future he needed further documentation.

8As can be seen from the summary above it is not clear what this Application is about. As indicated the applicant claims that he has experienced discrimination in employment but he was not an employee of the identified respondents and the references to employment are from 2004. As regards the remarks that might implicate the identified respondents these events are said to have occurred in 2004 and 2007.

9The final allegation said to have occurred in 2010 does not obviously engage the Code and to the extent that it can be understood appears to be an allegation of the ongoing consequences of some ill-defined allegations against the respondents from 2004 and 2007.

10In my view these allegations are clearly out of time. Section 34 of the Code provides that a person may file an application alleging that his or her rights under the Code have been infringed within one year of the incident (or last incident) to which the application relates. Under section 34(2) of the Code, a person may apply to the Tribunal more than one year after the incident to which his or her application relates (or the last incident in a series of incidents) only if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay in filing the Application was incurred in good faith and that no substantial prejudice would result to any person affected by the delay if the Application were to proceed:

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.

11In order to satisfy the Tribunal that a delay was incurred in good faith, an applicant must provide the Tribunal with a reasonable explanation as to why he or she did not pursue his or her rights under the Code in a timely manner. As stated in Miller v Prudential Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241, in order for an applicant to establish that a delay in filing an application was incurred in good faith, the applicant must show something more than simply an absence of bad faith; otherwise, there would be little meaning to the statutory limitation period. The mandatory one-year limitation period for filing an application 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 to file an application within one year when pursuing a human rights claim.

12In his submissions in response to the NOID the applicant confirms what is apparent from the Application that the substance of these claims have been the subject of one or more claims made to the Ontario Human Rights Commission and likely should be dismissed for that reason pursuant to section 53(8) of the Code.

13In terms of a good faith explanation it is not clear that one is offered. The applicant does claim that this Application is the continuation of prior proceedings before the OHRC and perhaps the Tribunal as well, however it is not clear how this is so and even if it is how that constitutes a good faith explanation for the extensive delay in this case is not explained. What the applicant appears to be saying is that as a result of false charges and arrests in 2004 and 2007 he has difficulty crossing the border into the United States and requires further documentation than others without such arrests might require. In my view this is clearly the ongoing consequences of acts alleged to have occurred at a minimum 6 years prior to the Application being filed. I note that the applicant alleges that these difficulties first occurred in 2004 and then every year thereafter. There is no question that the applicant had all of the facts necessary to file this Application several years before he decided to file it. This is neither a reasonable or good faith explanation. If on the other hand and this may be the case, part of the explanation is that he has already filed claims either at the OHRC or with the Tribunal directly this is not a good faith explanation and merely raises other reasons why the Application should be dismissed.

14Accordingly the Application is dismissed. Given my conclusion that there is no good faith explanation for the delay there is no reason to consider whether any party would be prejudiced by the delay.