Delano Brown v. Co-operative Housing Federation of Toronto and Emily De Keyzer, 2017 HRTO 1105

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Delano Brown

Applicant

-and-

Co-operative Housing Federation of Toronto and Emily De Keyzer

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Esi Codjoe

Date: August 25, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1105

Indexed as: Brown v. Co-operative Housing Federation of Toronto

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Co-Operative Housing Federation of Toronto and Emily De Keyzer, Respondents

Luke Saites, Counsel

1This Application alleged discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), with respect to services because of disability. The applicant lists the date of last incident as being February 18, 2016. The Application was dated on February 20, 2017, and received by the Tribunal for filing on February 21, 2017. The Tribunal’s correspondence to the parties notes that the Application was received on February 21, 2017.

2On June 13, 2017, the respondents filed a Request For Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”). They submit that the Application should be dismissed on the basis that the Application was filed past the one year time frame outlined in section 34 of the Code.

3The applicant did not provide any written submissions in response to the RFOP.

findings

4Section 34 of the Code outlines the timeframe within which an application may be filed, namely one year. The section reads 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.

5The Tribunal has interpreted the meaning of section 34 in various decisions. In Ward-Taylor v. Instachange Displays Limited, 2012 HRTO 1282 the Tribunal determined that if the due date of an application falls on a Saturday, Sunday or Holiday, then the time limit for filing the document extends to the next day the Tribunal is open for business. In this case, the one year date fell on Saturday February 18, 2017. The Application was delivered on February 20, 2017 which was the Family Day Holiday, a day the Tribunal was not open for business, and received by the Tribunal for filing on February 21, 2017. As such the time limit for any application filed on February 18, 19 or 20, 2017 was extended to February 21, 2017. Applying this reasoning, the Application is timely.

order

6For the above reasons, the respondents’ request to dismiss the Application is denied.

7The parties previously indicated a willingness to participate in mediation. However, the respondents asked that the mediation be adjourned pending the outcome of this interim decision. If the respondents still wish to participate in mediation in this case, they must advise the Tribunal whether they agree to attempt mediation, within 7 days of receiving this interim decision.

8I am not seized of this matter.