Marshall v. Ontario (Transportation), 2015 HRTO 894

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ricky Marshall

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Transportation and Licence Appeal Tribunal

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: July 7, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 894

Indexed as: Marshall v. Ontario (Transportation)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ricky Marshall, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination because of disability and citizenship contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant appears to have filed the Application on behalf of his spouse. In the Application, he alleges that the respondents violated the Code when the License Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) posted a decision on the internet regarding the suspension of his spouse’s driver’s license. The Application primarily relates to concerns over privacy but the applicant claims that his spouse’s disability and/or citizenship may have been a factor in why the LAT posted its decision. The LAT posted the decision in October 2005.

2On June 2, 2015, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application. The Tribunal set out three reasons why the Application appeared to fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Among other reasons, the Tribunal noted that the Application was filed more than a year after the alleged incident of discrimination and the applicant had provided no “good faith” reason for the delay.

3The applicant filed written submissions arguing that there has been no delay in this case since the decision will appear on the LAT’s website indefinitely.

4Under the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, an Application will only be dismissed at this preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the Application that it does not fall within its jurisdiction. See, for example, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381; Belcastro v. Metrolinx Go Transit, 2012 HRTO 2121.

5For the reasons set out below, I have determined that it is plain and obvious that the Application is untimely and should be dismissed for delay.

ANALYSIS WITH RESPECT TO DELAY

6Section 34 of the Code provides that an Application must be filed within one year of the incident to which the Application relates, or within one year of the last incident in a series of events. Subsection 34(2) allows for a filing of an Application outside of the time limit if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any of the respondents.

7The alleged incident of discrimination by the respondents in this case is the posting of the LAT’s decision online. While the posting of the decision may continue to have ongoing effects on the applicant, these ongoing effects do not amount to further incidents of discrimination. See Visic v. Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2008 CanLII 20993 (Ont. Div. Ct.). There is only one alleged incident of discrimination in this case and it is the posting of the decision online. The LAT posted the decision almost 10 years ago. Therefore, the Application was clearly filed outside the one year time frame set out in s. 34 of the Code.

8The Tribunal may accept an Application that is untimely if it is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice would result from accepting the Application. In order to satisfy the Tribunal that a delay was incurred in good faith, an applicant must provide the Tribunal with a reasonable explanation as to why he or she did not pursue his or her rights under the Code in a timely manner.

9As stated in Miller v Prudential Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241, in order for an applicant to establish that a delay in filing an application was incurred in good faith, the applicant must show something more than simply an absence of bad faith; otherwise, there would be little meaning to the statutory limitation period. The mandatory one-year limitation period for filing an application is consistent with the policy objective, expressed elsewhere in the Code, that human rights claims should be dealt with expeditiously. Thus, the Code requires an individual to act with all due diligence to file an application within one year when pursuing a human rights claim.

10In the Application, the applicant provided as a reason for the delay the fact that no one advised him to file an Application with the Tribunal. Although ignorance of one’s rights may in some circumstances amount to good faith, the applicant must establish that he or she had no reason to make inquiries about his or her rights. See Simmons v. Ontario (Transportation), 2010 HRTO 1884; Stewart v. Mitten Vinyl, 2010 HRTO 1628; Arcuri v. Cambridge Memorial Hospital, 2010 HRTO 578.

11In the circumstances, I find that the applicant has not provided a reasonable explanation as to why he did not pursue his rights under the Code in a timely manner. Following the LAT’s posting of its decision, the applicant filed complaints with numerous authorities including the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, the Ontario Ombudsman as well as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He has not provided a satisfactory justification for why he did not file this Application with the Tribunal sooner.

12For the reasons set out above, I find it is plain and obvious that the applicant’s delay was not incurred in good faith, as that term has been interpreted by the Tribunal. Therefore, his Application does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

order

13The Application is dismissed.