Northey v. The Waterdown Manor, 2015 HRTO 1581

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Terry Northey

Applicant

-and-

The Waterdown Manor

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: November 23, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1581

Indexed as: Northey v. The Waterdown Manor

APPEARANCES

Terry Northey, Applicant

Self-represented

The Waterdown Manor, Respondent

Rocki Maimone and Anthony Gagliese, Representatives

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to housing and services because of age, disability and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The Tribunal directed that a half-day preliminary hearing would be held to address the issue of whether the Application is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it was filed more than one year after the incidents of alleged discrimination and because it had no reasonable prospect of success.

Background

3The applicant was a resident of the respondent from August 2012 to May 2013.

4When the applicant completed his Application, he identified the date of the last incident of alleged discrimination as May 29, 2014. The narrative attached to the Application and set out in the supplementary materials filed by the applicant describes some of the difficulties and disputes he had with the respondent while he was resident there.

5This Application was filed May 14, 2014.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

6The Code provides that in order for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the Application, it must be filed within one year of the last incident of discrimination. In this case the first incident of alleged discrimination occurred in August 2012, 17 months before the Application was filed. Section 34 states:

(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.

7During the preliminary hearing, I explained the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the issue of delay. I explained that because the Application was filed on May 14, 2014, any alleged events of discrimination that occurred prior to May 14, 2013 would be beyond the Tribunal’s one-year limitation for filing applications unless they were part of a series of incidents of discrimination. I further explained how the Tribunal could not hear the allegations that were outside of the one-year limitation unless the applicant could satisfy the Tribunal that he had a good faith reason for the delay in filing.

8The applicant did not claim that his Application involved a series of incidents with the last incident in the series being within the required one-year time frame.

9After I had explained the one-year limitation for filing, the applicant responded that he had not previously understood this. He conceded that none of the alleged events of discrimination occurred after May 14, 2013. He stated that “in reality they were before that date and I was almost out the door by [May 14, 2013]”. He explained that the May 29, 2014 date on his application was an error.

10I find that the Application was not filed within the time required by section 34 of the Code.

11The applicant did not attempt to explain the reason for his delay in filing when he was invited to do so. I therefore cannot find that he has provided any good faith reason for the delay.

Order

12The Application is dismissed.