Wilson v. West Park Healthcare Centre, 2016 HRTO 864

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Selvyn Wilson

Applicant

-and-

West Park Healthcare Centre

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: June 29, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 864

Indexed as: Wilson v. West Park Healthcare Centre

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Selvyn Wilson, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Application, filed on March 22, 2016 under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect employment because of gender identity. The Application concerns the termination of the applicant’s employment with the respondent on March 19, 2015.

2Section 34 of the Code provides as follows:

34. (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.

3By letter dated May 26, 2016, the Tribunal provided the applicant with a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (the “Notice”) because it appeared that the Application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination. The Notice also advised that the applicant did not appear to have cited facts that constitute “good faith” within the meaning of the Tribunal’s case law. In the Notice, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions addressing these issues.

4The applicant filed submissions on June 15, 2016. The applicant submitted that the delay in filing the Application was minimal. Alternatively, the applicant submitted that the time limit for filing the Application should run from January 7, 2016, when his trade union made a final decision to withdraw the grievance it had filed on the applicant’s behalf. The applicant also submitted that he approached a former paralegal, Harry Kopyto, on March 5, 2016 for assistance in filing this Application and provided him with the necessary information. The applicant submitted that Mr. Kopyto stated that the Application should be filed immediately, but that he required $160.00 to do this. The Applicant submitted that he provided the funds to Mr. Kopyto on March 12, 2016 and Mr. Kopyto assured him that the Application would be filed on time. The applicant stated that he had no reason not to believe that Mr. Kopyto would meet the deadline and was disappointed that he did not.

Analysis and Decision

5At this stage in the processing of the Application, the Application may only be dismissed if it is plain and obvious that it was not filed in accordance with section 34 of the Code.

6The applicant’s complaint is that the respondent’s decision to dismiss him was discriminatory. The dismissal occurred on March 19, 2015, more than one year before the applicant filed this Application. Accordingly, the applicant must establish that the delay was incurred in good faith and that no prejudice will result to any person because of the delay. The applicant’s submissions indicate that he was aware of the deadline to file the Application and took action to ensure that the Application would be filed before the deadline expired. Unfortunately, the person he approached for assistance did not meet the deadline as he promised. In these circumstances, it is not plain and obvious that there is not a good faith explanation for the delay in filing the Application. I am unable at this point to assess any prejudice to the respondent. Accordingly, the Tribunal shall continue to deal with the Application.

7A decision to continue to deal with an application in these circumstances is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect to the Application (Rule 13.5).

Order

8The Tribunal shall proceed with the processing of the Application. Pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Application, a copy of this Interim Decision, the applicant’s submissions on the jurisdiction issue, and all correspondence between the Tribunal and the applicant on the jurisdiction issue, together with a Notice of Application, will be provided to the respondent.

9I am not seized of this matter.