HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jonathan Sanderson
Applicant
-and-
Alexandra Marine & General Hospital
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Sanderson v. Alexandra Marine & General Hospital
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to health care services contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2In the Application, the applicant discusses events involving the respondent hospital and a doctor who works at the hospital. The events discussed in the Application that directly involves the hospital and the doctor, appear to have happened in 2013. The applicant filed in September 2015 and so the Application was filed more than one year after the events to which the Application relates.
3Section 34 of the Code reads as follows:
- (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.
4Since it appeared that the Application was filed more than one year after the events to which the Application relates, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, inviting the applicant to make submissions on the timeliness issue. The applicant has now made submissions.
5The applicant indicates that the last incident of discrimination was in December 2014. On this basis, he submits that the Application was filed within one year of the discriminatory events.
6It appears that the events that the applicant describes as happening in December 2014 were events involving his former employer. The applicant indicates that those events were negatively influenced by the continuing effects of actions taken by the hospital and the doctor in 2013. However, it does not appear that there is anything that the hospital is alleged to have done subsequent to the events in 2013. The fact that there may have been continuing consequences for the applicant of things that were done in 2013 does not mean that there were incidents of alleged discrimination within the one year period before the applicant filed the Application on September 4, 2015.
7On the basis of the information provided by the applicant, it appears to me that there is no allegation of discrimination involving the respondent to this Application that occurred within one year of when the Application was filed.
8The applicant also submits that there is a good faith explanation for the delay, which is that he was not aware that he could file an Application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario until he was told about the Tribunal by a friend or while he was pursuing other related matters.
9The Tribunal has consistently found that the fact that a person was not aware that he could file an Application is not, on its own, a good faith explanation for delay that can justify an extension of the time limits in section 34 of the Code.
10For these reasons, I find that the Application was not filed in accordance with section 34 of the Code and it is dismissed on that basis.
Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of October, 2015.
“Signed By”
Brian Cook
Vice-chair