Bachan v. Esab Canada, 2015 HRTO 956

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BETWEEN:

Rajdaye Bachan Applicant

-and-

Esab Canada and Mike Williams Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: July 20, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 956 Indexed as: Bachan v. Esab Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Rajdaye Bachan, Applicant Self-represented

Introduction

1The applicant filed an Application on March 25, 2015 alleging discrimination in employment, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The Application contains allegations relating to incidents, the last of which allegedly took place on February 26, 2014.

2On June 2, 2015, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss ("NOID") for delay. The applicant filed submissions in response to the Notice on July 2, 2015.

Decision and Analysis

3Section 34 of the Code states in part:

(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.

4As noted in Corrigan v. Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board, 2008 HRTO 424, to determine that a delay in pursuing one's Code rights was incurred in good faith, the applicant must provide a reasonable explanation for why he did not pursue his Code rights in a timely manner.

5The applicant acknowledges that the last act of discrimination in his Application occurred outside the one-year time limit set out in the Code. However, he submits that the delay was incurred in good faith.

6In his submissions to the NOID, the applicant asserts that he delayed filing because he was hoping that his union would pursue his grievance. He lists multiple contacts with the union both leading up to and after the filing of his Application.

7This Tribunal has stated that waiting for other legal proceedings to conclude before pursuing one's rights under the Code will generally not constitute a valid explanation for delay in filing an Application. See Abutalib v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 1697. There was nothing to prevent the applicant from filing a separate human rights Application even while pursuing his grievance.

8Given the absence of evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith, the Tribunal is without the jurisdiction to deal with this Application.

9The Application is dismissed.