HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
James Whyte
Applicant
-and-
March of Dimes Canada - Sudbury Office
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: Whyte v. March of Dimes Canada - Sudbury Office
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
James Whyte, Applicant
Self-represented
1This Application alleged discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The incident of alleged discrimination contained in the Application relates to the respondent’s requirement that the applicant sign a contract to continue using their services. This incident occurred on March 11, 2016. The Application was filed more than a year later on June 8, 2017.
2On July 7, 2017 the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“the Notice”), advising the applicant that the Application was filed more than a year after the last incident of alleged discrimination and the applicant had provided no “good faith” reason for the delay.
3In response to the Notice, the applicant submitted that the delay in filing his Application occurred because he has a learning disability and requires assistance with filing paperwork. He stated the sole service provider for this type of assistance in Sudbury is the March of Dimes, the respondent named in this Application.
finding
4An 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 Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.
5For 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.
6Section 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 the respondent. 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.
7The Code provides applicants with a full year in which to file Applications. This is a long time period. In my view the applicant has not provided a reasonable explanation as to why he did not seek assistance to file his Application sooner in order to ensure that it was filed 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.
order
8For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed as untimely and therefore outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of August, 2017.
“Signed By”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair