HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Hans Felix
Applicant
-and-
Canadian Tire Corporation, Stephen Cornfield, and ProCom IT Staffing
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Felix v. Canadian Tire Corporation
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Hans Felix, Applicant
Self-represented
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 employment because of ancestry, citizenship, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, race, record of offences and reprisal.
2In his Application the applicant alleges discrimination in two instances, one in 2010 and another in 2013.
3On February 18, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) because it appeared that all or part of the Application was filed beyond the one-year time limit provided for in section 34 of the Code.
4The applicant responded to the NOID and pointed out that he was relying on an incident of alleged discrimination said to have occurred in December 2013. The applicant provided no explanation and made no submissions with respect to the timeliness of the 2010 incident.
5At this preliminary stage before the Application has been delivered to the respondents and a Response (Form 2) has been filed, the Tribunal will only dismiss an Application where it is plain and obvious that it is outside the its jurisdiction. See Battaglia v. Maplehurst Correctional Complex, 2009 HRTO 1167.
6I find that the Application as it relates to the allegations in 2010 are dismissed because they are out of time and the applicant has provided no explanation for the delay in filing the Application as it relates to those events.
7Sections 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.
8The Application as it relates to the 2010 allegations is out of time. It was filed more than three years after the incidents described by the applicant. Accordingly, unless the applicant can establish a good faith explanation for the delay the Application must be dismissed.
9The Tribunal has held on many occasions that where an applicant seeks to establish that the delay in filing their application was “incurred in good faith”, the applicant must show something more than the absence of bad faith. The applicant has provided no explanation for the delay in filing the Application as it relates to the 2010 incidents.
10I am satisfied that it is plain and obvious that this aspect of the Application is out of time and that there is no good faith explanation offered for the delay.
11For all of these reasons this aspect of the Application is dismissed. Having found that there is no good faith explanation for the delay in filing the Application, I need not consider whether any party might have been prejudiced by such delay.
12The remaining allegations in the Application related to an allegedly discriminatory job interview in December 2013 will proceed to the next stage of the Tribunal process. A copy of the Application together with a Notice of Application issued by the Tribunal will be delivered with this Interim Decision. The respondents will file a Response (Form 2) within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.
13I am not seized of this case.
Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of March, 2014.
“Signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair