HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Guillaume Kibale
Applicant
-and-
Metro Store and Jerry MacLeod
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Kibale v. Metro Store
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Guillaume Kibale, Applicant
Self-represented
1This is an Application filed on December 26, 2013 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services based on a number of grounds.
2On January 15, 2014 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Incomplete Application and directed the applicant to complete the Application by answering a number of questions. On February 6, 2014, the Tribunal received the applicant’s response to these questions.
3On March 3, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application on the basis that the Application was not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it was not filed within one year of the last incident of alleged discrimination. The applicant was directed to make submissions on this jurisdictional issue.
4On April 7, 2014, the Tribunal received the applicant’s submissions.
5For the reasons that follow the Application is dismissed because it is plain and obvious to me that it was not filed within the prescribed time limit. Since the respondents have not yet been served with the Application this Decision refers solely to the applicant’s version of events.
The Law
6Section 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.
The last incident of alleged discrimination
7The first issue that the Tribunal must decide is the date of the last incident of alleged discrimination. The Application indicates that the last date of alleged discrimination occurred on December 21, 2012, however, the narrative does not provide any particulars of any events that occurred on this day. In the submissions received on February 6, 2014, the applicant provides particulars of an incident that occurred approximately three years before and another incident that occurred on September 19, 2012. However, once again there is no reference to any events that occurred on December 21, 2012.
8In the submissions received on April 7, 2014, the applicant asserts that the Application is timely because the last incident occurred on December 28, 2012. The applicant asserts that if there was an error in the date of the last incident of discrimination it is his fault because he may have suffered from a migraine when he wrote the Application. The April 7, 2014 written submissions recount with much detail the events that occurred three years before and on September 12, 2012. However, in these submissions the applicant fails to describe any events that occurred on December 28, 2012.
9Having reviewed the Application and the applicant’s submissions dated February 6, 2013 and April 7, 2014, I find that the last incident of discrimination occurred on September 12, 2012. There are simply no allegations described by the applicant that refer to events that occurred after this date. Further, there are no particulars of any events that occurred either on December 21 and/or 28, 2012.
10I find that since the last allegation of discrimination occurred on September 12, 2012, that this Application was filed beyond the one year time limit.
Good Faith
11The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to accept an Application filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination if it is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith. The Tribunal has extensive case law which has addressed the issue of whether the delay in filing an application was incurred in good faith. Corrigan v. Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board, 2008 HRTO 424.
12As stated by the Tribunal 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.” In the event that the Application is not timely then 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.
13The applicant has not provided the Tribunal with any explanation for the delay in filing the Application. The applicant has asserted that he was legally trained at the Sorbonne. As such, he should have been able to exercise his rights in a diligent manner. In these circumstances, the applicant has not established that the delay was incurred in good faith.
ORDER
14The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 22^nd^ day of April, 2014.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair