Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Hardeep Sidhu Applicant
-and-
H. David Locke, Glen Henderson and Richard Allman Respondents
Decision
Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle Date: April 11, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 519 Indexed as: Sidhu v. H. David Locke
Written Submissions
Hardeep Sidhu, Applicant Self-represented
Introduction
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to provision of services because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and creed, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The Application was filed on February 6, 2014 and indicates that the date of the last incident was February 18, 2011.
3On February 25, 2014, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) to the applicant, indicating that it appears the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it was filed more than a year after the last incident of alleged discrimination and the applicant did not appear to have cited facts that constitute “good faith”, and because the Application fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondents.
4The NOID provided the applicant with the opportunity to make written submissions responding to the above-noted jurisdictional issues.
5The applicant has now responded with his written submissions.
Background
6The applicant states that he was charged with domestic violence on November 3, 2008. In his narrative, he alleges that he paid the respondent H. David Locke, and that one week before his November 5, 2009 trial, the respondent Mr. Locke required additional payment. He alleges that Mr. Locke did not attend at the trial on his behalf and that instead he sent Glen Henderson, another lawyer from his office. The applicant complains about the quality of representation he received and indicates that he was convicted.
7The applicant alleges that he subsequently hired Richard Allman as a lawyer to appeal the guilty verdict. He alleges that he paid fees to him, but states that he is not even sure if the lawyer appeared for him at the February 18, 2011 appeal hearing. He alleges that Richard Allman had told him that he would be able to watch the proceedings on “video court from the jail”, but that this did not happen and he had to complete the full sentence. He also states that he was “in jail for one year (served two third time of 8 months)”.
8In his Application, he states that he did not “apply earlier as I was very much mentally affected by that event and related subsequent events and I did not know about my rights until very recently”.
9In the written submissions he provided in response to the NOID, the applicant restates the above-noted explanation from his Application, states he was “stressed and depressed” and states that he was “dealing with a criminal case until July 2013”, was “serving a sentence until July 2013”, had brought his allegations to David Locke’s attention several days after the events, and submits that he was not aware of a deadline for filing his Application.
Analysis
10An Application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the Application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
11Section 34 of the Code provides:
(1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part 1 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.
12The applicant does not dispute that his Application fails to meet the one year requirement set out in section 34(1), but he relies on section 34(2) in submitting an explanation for the delay in filing his Application and though he does not state it explicitly, he appears to argue that it was filed in good faith.
13His explanations are essentially that he was incarcerated for a period of time, he was unaware of his rights under the Code and he was “depressed”.
14The Tribunal has found that ignorance of one’s rights under the Code does not constitute good faith within the meaning of s. 34(2). See for example [Lutz v. Toronto (City) 2009 HRTO 1137](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/