Mba Menie v. Head 2 Head Recruitment Solutions, 2015 HRTO 957

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Eric Mba Menie

Applicant

-and-

Head 2 Head Recruitment Solutions, Microsoft Canada, Craig Tullett

and Abdel Agouzal

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: July 20, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 957

Indexed as: Mba Menie v. Head 2 Head Recruitment Solutions

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Eric Mba Menie, Applicant

Hans Harry Felix, Representative

Introduction

1The applicant filed an Application on March 9, 2015 alleging discrimination in services, 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 sometime in early 2012.

2On April 23, 2015, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) for delay. The applicant filed submissions in response to the Notice on May 23, 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 takes the position that his Application was timely because the last incident of alleged discrimination took place on July 26, 2014. However, a review of the applicant’s narrative shows that the only thing that happened that day (actually, July 24, 2014) was that the Employment Standards Officer released his decision that he did not have the authority issue an order because of the limitation period in s. 111 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000. This does not constitute an act of discrimination on the part of the named respondents. The last actual allegation in the narrative of the Application allegedly took place in early 2012, some three years before the Application was filed.

6In the submissions to the NOID made on his behalf, the applicant does not make any submissions about good faith. Given the absence of evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith, the Tribunal is without the jurisdiction to deal with this Application.

7The Application is dismissed.