Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Anthony James Applicant
-and-
Toronto District School Board, Shelly Mediratta, Dave Johnson and the Individual Respondents listed in Schedule A Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: November 12, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1522 Indexed as: James v. Toronto District School Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Anthony James, Applicant Self-Represented
Toronto District School Board, Shelly Mediratta, Dave Johnson, and the Personal Respondents listed in Schedule A Leola Pon, Counsel
1The purpose of this Decision is to decide whether the Tribunal should dismiss the Application on a preliminary basis because it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
2On June 27, 2014, the applicant, who is a Child and Youth Worker, filed an Application with the Tribunal under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleged that the respondents subjected him to discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment and services. In section 7(c) of the Application (“What was the date of the last event?”), the applicant wrote: “26/06/2013”. In section 7(d) (“If you are applying more than one year from the last event, please explain why:”), he left the answer space blank. Other parts of the Application set out a series of alleged incidents which culminated on June 26, 2013 when the Toronto District School Board terminated a temporary position that he held in a school.
3The statutory deadline for filing an application with the Tribunal and the circumstances under which a late application will be accepted are set out in subsections 34(1) and (2) of the Code:
- (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.
4On June 29, 2015, the respondents, with the exception of Paul Addie and Al Wolch, filed a Response to the Application, which denied the allegations of discrimination and reprisal. The Response also requested, among other things, that the Application be dismissed on a preliminary basis because it was filed outside the one-year time limit in s. 34(1) of the Code, and the applicant did not plead any particulars to establish that his delay in filing his Application was incurred in good faith and that no one would be substantially prejudiced by the delay.
5On July 15, 2015, the applicant sent the Tribunal an email, which set out some of the Tribunal’s case law on delay, including the requirement that an applicant establish that any delay in filing an Application within the statutory time limit was incurred in good faith. However, he did not include written submissions explaining how this case law is applicable to the facts of his case.
6On July 22, 2015, the Tribunal delivered the Response to the applicant, and specifically directed him to file a Reply with written submissions addressing the respondents’ request to dismiss his Application on the basis that he did not file it within the prescribed time limit as set out in [s. 34(1)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html#sec34subsec1_