Henry v. Terra Nova Transport Ltd., 2016 HRTO 1435

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alex Henry

Applicant

-and-

Terra Nova Transport Ltd. and A-1 Personnel Resources Inc.

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: November 3, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1435 Indexed as: Henry v. Terra Nova Transport Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Alex Henry, Applicant Self-represented

Terra Nova Transport Ltd., Respondent Heather Cameron, Counsel

A-1 Personnel Resources Inc., Respondent Christina Borges, Representative

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The last incident of discrimination contained in the Application was the applicant’s lay off or the end of his placement which occurred in February 2015. The Application was filed more than a year later on March 3, 2016.

2The respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis that it falls within federal jurisdiction and that it is untimely.

3I issued a Case Assessment Direction directing the respondents to file submissions in support of their request that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on jurisdictional grounds. I also directed the applicant to make submissions in response to the respondents’ timeliness objection.

4In his submissions on the timeliness issue, the applicant indicated that his delay in filing his Application occurred because he was not aware of his rights under the Code. He stated that he acted in good faith upon being advised of his rights.

finding

5Under the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, an Application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the Application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See, for example, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381, and Belcastro v. Metrolinx Go Transit, 2012 HRTO 2121.

6For 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.

7Section 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.

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.

9Although lack of knowledge about 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 sooner. See Simmons v. Ontario (Transportation), 2010 HRTO 1884; Stewart v. Mitten Vinyl, 2010 HRTO 1628; Arcuri v. Cambridge Memorial Hospital, 2010 HRTO 578.

10In the circumstances, I find that the applicant has not provided a reasonable explanation as to why he did not inquire about his rights under the Code in a timely manner. As such, 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. Due to my finding on this issue, it is not necessary to address the jurisdictional objection raised by the respondents.

order

11For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed.