Wilson v. Yonge Street Mission, 2015 HRTO 1665

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

John Wilson Applicant

-and-

The Yonge Street Mission and The Three Ten Centre Inc. Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: December 10, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1665 Indexed as: Wilson v. Yonge Street Mission

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

John Duncan Wilson, Applicant Self-represented

The Yonge Street Mission and The Three Ten Centre Inc., Respondents Paulette Haynes, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application filed on August 7, 2015, alleges discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2This Interim Decision addresses the Requests for Order During Proceeding ("the Requests") filed by respondent, The Yonge Street Mission.

Adding The Three Ten Centre Inc. as a Respondent

3The Yonge Street Mission asks to add The Three Ten Centre Inc. as an organizational respondent to this Application. The Yonge Street Mission submits that The Three Ten Centre Inc. was the applicant's employer at all material times.

4In his Application, the applicant did not name The Three Ten Centre Inc.

5The applicant and The Three Ten Centre Inc. both filed responses consenting to the Request.

Analysis

6I find it appropriate to grant the Request. The alleged discrimination in this case arises from the applicant's employment. The applicant's allegations could support a finding that The Three Ten Centre Inc. is responsible for any violation of the Code.

7Since The Three Ten Centre Inc. and the applicant have consented to this Request, I find that the parties would not experience any prejudice from a decision to add a respondent at this stage in the proceeding.

Request for Dismissal for Delay

8The Yonge Street Mission also filed a Request that the Application be dismissed on the basis that it was filed more than one year after the date of the last alleged incident of discrimination and therefore, the Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to hear the Application.

9The applicant responded opposing that Request. However, his response did not provide any submissions on the issue of delay in filing the Application.

10The Three Ten Centre Inc. supports the request and adopts the The Yonge Street Mission's submission.

11Section 34 of the Code states:

34(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.

12Section 34(1) is a mandatory limitation period established under the Code. The Tribunal has held in numerous decisions that if an applicant seeks to rely upon an untimely allegation, he or she must satisfy the Tribunal that the delay in raising the allegations was incurred in good faith pursuant to section 34(2) of the Code. The Tribunal has set a fairly high onus on applicants to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, while recognizing that there will be legitimate circumstances that justify exercising the discretion under section 34(2). See Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241.

13The applicant has not made any submissions in response to the allegation that the Application was filed more than one year after the date of the last alleged incident of discrimination or cited facts that would constitute "good faith" within the meaning of section 34(2) under the Tribunal's case law.

Directions and Next Steps

14The applicant is directed to provide written submissions in response to the allegation that his Application was filed more than one year after the date of the last alleged incident of discrimination. These submissions should address the question of whether he has good faith reasons for this delay. These submissions are to be served on the respondents and filed with the Tribunal by December 28, 2015.

15The Tribunal will consider the parties' submissions and decide whether the issue of delay can be determined in writing.

16If the Tribunal determines that an oral hearing of the issue of delay is required, the Tribunal may provide further directions and schedule a half-day preliminary hearing.

17If the Tribunal determines that the Application or part of it is outside its jurisdiction because of delay, it will be dismissed in whole or in part.

ORDER

18For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The Three Ten Centre Inc. is added as an organizational respondent and the title of proceedings is amended to reflect this addition;

b. The Three Ten Centre Inc. is not required to file a Response to the Application, at this time; and

c. On or before December 28, 2015, the applicant shall serve on the respondents and file with the Tribunal his submissions on the issue of whether the Application should be dismissed because it was filed more than one year from the date of the last alleged incident of discrimination.

19I am not seized.