HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
A.B.
Applicant
-and-
The Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, Alain Labelle and Dominika Czechowicz
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Eban Bayefsky Date: August 16, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1069 Indexed as: A.B. v. The Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
1The applicant filed an Application under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on March 20, 2017, alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities. The applicant claimed that between September 22 and “September 31”, 2010, he was improperly admitted to, treated and detained at the organizational respondent’s facility.
2Due to the highly personal and sensitive nature of the facts in this case, involving issues of involuntary detention under the Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter M.7, as amended, the Decision has been anonymized.
3On June 22, 2017, the Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction as it was filed more than one year after the incident described in the Application and the applicant had not provided evidence of a good faith explanation for the delay. The Registrar invited the applicant to make submissions.
4The applicant submitted that an “individual trapped in such a way [generally] cannot re-address (nor should they have to) an incident such as this within any time frame” and that the Tribunal should take a “proactive” approach to the issue by consulting with some of the respondent’s health care professionals.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
5Under section 34(1) of the Code, a person may apply to the Tribunal within one year after the incident to which the application relates or, if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series. Under section 34(2) of the Code, a person may apply more than one year after the incident or incidents described in the application if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice would result to a person affected by the delay.
6Under the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, an Application will only be dismissed at this 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.
7The Tribunal has set a fairly high onus on applicants to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. See, for example, Klein v. Toronto Zionist Council, 2009 HRTO 241. In order to satisfy the Tribunal that the delay was incurred in good faith, the applicant must provide a reasonable explanation as to why he or she did not pursue his or her rights under the Code in a timely manner. See, for example, Corrigan v. Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board, 2008 HRTO 424, and Cartier v. Northeast Mental Health Centre, 2009 HRTO 1670.
8The Tribunal has also held that, even though the impugned conduct may have ongoing consequences, without “fresh steps” of discrimination, the effects following an initial event do not amount to a series of incidents within the meaning of the Code. See Garrie v. Janus Joan Inc., 2012 HRTO 1955.
9The applicant has complained about an alleged incident or series of incidents in 2010. While the applicant alleges that the respondents mistreated him, his Application does not specify the ground or grounds on which any of the respondents are claimed to have discriminated against him. In any event, the applicant has not, as is incumbent on him, provided any information upon which to conclude that he was unable to file his Application in a timely manner. Nor has he alleged that the respondents engaged in “fresh steps” of discrimination in the year before he filed his Application. Accordingly, I find that the applicant filed his Application beyond the prescribed one-year time limit and that he has not shown that the delay was incurred in good faith. Given my findings on the issue of good faith, it is not necessary to consider whether any of the respondents would suffer substantial prejudice as a result of the delay.
ORDER
10In the circumstances, I find that it is plain and obvious that the Application does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it is untimely. The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of August, 2017.
‘Signed By”
Eban Bayefsky
Vice-chair