Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Marco Simoes-Vaz Applicant
-and-
Toronto Police Services Board Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Bruce Best Date: October 19, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1388 Indexed as: Simoes Vaz v. Toronto Police Services Board
Introduction
1The applicant filed two Applications under s.34 of the Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c.H19, as amended (the “Code”), on August 10, 2015. Both Applications alleged discrimination on the basis of disability with respect to services, the first Application concerned an incident on June 1, 2012, and the second Application concerned an unrelated incident on May 24, 2011. Both were filed beyond the 1 year time limit in s.34(1)(a) of the Code. The reason given for the delay in filing, in both Applications, was “I was sick and afraid for my safety.”
2On September 2, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”) in each Application. The NOIDs state that the Applications appear to be outside the Tribunal’s power to decide as they were filed more than one year after the alleged incidents and because there were no facts provided which would support a finding that the delay was incurred in good faith.
3The NOID issued with respect to the Application concerning the 2012 incident also noted that the description of the incident failed to identify any discriminatory act within the meaning of the Code.
4The applicant was directed to respond to the issues raised in the NOIDs by no later than October 2, 2015. The applicant was warned that if he failed to respond to the NOIDs the Tribunal would make a decision based only on the information in the Applications, or that it may consider the failure to respond as an abandonment, and the applications may be dismissed for that reason.
Delay
5The Applications were both filed considerably more than a year after the alleged discriminatory incidents, and as such are out of time under s.34(1).
6Section 34(2) permits the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to allow an untimely application to continue where satisfied there is a good faith explanation for the delay in filing. The only explanation provided for the delay was that the applicant was sick and afraid for his safety.
7In some cases, a delay in filing which is closely connected to an applicant’s disability may constitute “good faith”; see Kelly v. CultureLink Settlement Services, 2010 HRTO 977. In the present case, the applicant did not indicate whether his being “sick” was related to his disability. Assuming, without finding, that that is the case, the Applications nonetheless do not provide sufficient, or in fact any, detail that would allow the Tribunal to determine that the delay could be attributed to his disability. The NOIDs gave the applicant the opportunity to provide further information to explain the reason for the delay, but he has not done so.
Decision
8I find that the Applications are out of time under s.34(1). I am not satisfied, based on the information before me, that the delay in filing was incurred in good faith for the purposes of s.34(2).
Order
9The Applications are dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 19th day of October, 2015.
“Signed By”
__________________________________
Bruce Best Vice-chair