HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Beverley Halls
Applicant
-and-
City of Toronto Shelter, Housing and Support and Lakeshore Gardens Cooperative Inc.
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl
Indexed as: Halls v. City of Toronto Shelter, Housing and Support
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Beverley Halls, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to housing because of ethnic origin and disability as well as reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
background
2The Application was filed on May 26, 2015. In her Application, the applicant indicates that the last incident of discrimination occurred on April 10, 2014. The applicant alleges that she was unfairly banned from one of the respondents’ housing projects.
3On June 16, 2015 the Tribunal issued to the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) because it appears the Tribunal has no jurisdiction because the Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination and there were no facts to indicate the delay was in good faith.
dismissal
4For the reasons set out here, I have determined that the Application is untimely and should be dismissed for delay.
analysis
5Section 34 of the Code provides that an Application must be filed within one year of the incident to which the Application relates, or within one year of the last incident in a series of events. Subsection 34(2) allows for a filing of an application outside the time limit if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any of the respondents.
6The applicant explained in her submissions responding to the NOID that her case is about “overt systemic discrimination” but she fails to provide any reasons, good faith or otherwise, explaining the delay in filing her Application.
7The Tribunal can accept an application that is untimely if it is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice would result from accepting the application. To show that a delay was incurred in good faith, the applicant must provide a reasonable explanation for her failure to pursue her rights under the Code in a timely manner. In the absence of any explanation for the delay, the applicant has failed to establish a good faith reason for the delay within the meaning of Subsection 34(2) of the Code.
8The Application is, therefore, dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of July, 2015.
“Signed by”
Keith Brennenstuhl
Vice-chair