HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
A.D.
Applicant
-and-
L-3 Communications Electronic Systems Inc. and L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: A.D. v. L-3 Communications Electronic Systems Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
A.D., Applicant
Jean-Alexandre De Bousquet, Counsel
L-3 Communications Electronic Systems Inc. and L-3 Communications Holdings Inc., Respondents
Maria Gergin, Counsel
1This Interim Decision addresses the respondents’ request to strike portions of the Application as untimely.
2In his Application, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against him because of race and disability and reprised against him contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). His allegations relate to alleged harassment, poisoned work environment, failures to deal appropriately with his complaints, reprisals and the termination of his employment. The applicant’s allegations relate to events that occurred over the course of his employment from May 2013 to the date on which his employment was terminated in February 2015. He filed his Application on October 22, 2015.
3The respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss as untimely all of the allegations relating to incidents that occurred more than one year prior to the filing of the Application. The respondents submitted that the incidents in the Application are discrete and separate issues and thus do not form part of a series of incidents.
Applicable Law
4Section 34 of the Code provides that a person may file an application alleging that his or her rights under the Code have been infringed within one year of the incident or the last incident of a “series of incidents”. The Tribunal has found that there must be a thematic connection or nexus between incidents in order for them to be considered a “series of incidents” within the meaning of s. 34(1) of the Code. The Tribunal has found that a break of one year or more between incidents may interrupt or break a “series of incidents”. This analysis applies even when the applicant is alleging poisoned work environment. See, for example, Sutherland v. District School Board Ontario North East, 2010 HRTO 2270 at para. 23.
5In my view, the incidents set out in the Application amount to a series of incidents, the last of which occurred less than a year before the applicant filed his Application. In my view, there is a thematic connection between the incidents set out in the Application, as they all relate to alleged harassment and an alleged poisoned work environment which allegedly led to reprisals and eventually to the termination of the applicant’s employment. In my view, the allegations do not relate to disparate and separate incidents. The underlying theme of the applicant’s allegations is that he experienced harassment as a racialized employee with a disability and/or reprisals for having filed internal complaints, all of which ultimately allegedly led to the termination of his employment. In my view, all of the allegations raised by the applicant share this common theme, which provides a sufficient connection or nexus between these allegations to support a finding that they all form a “series of incidents” within the meaning of s. 34(1) of the Code. Moreover, there are no breaks of a year or more between the various incidents which might break this series of incidents.
ORDERs and Directions
6For the above reasons, I deny the respondents’ request to strike some of the allegations in the Application as untimely
Dated at Toronto, this 25th day of May, 2016.
“Signed by”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair