HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Marc Carroll
Applicant
-and-
Sudbury Catholic District School Board
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Yasmeena Mohamed
Indexed as: Carroll v. Sudbury Catholic District School Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Marc Carroll, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1This Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19. as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to services because of disability.
2The applicant alleges that from the time he started high-school in 2001until 2005, he wanted to pursue a career in filmmaking. The applicant alleges his teachers and teacher’s aides at the respondent’s school, all dissuaded him from pursuing his career as a filmmaker. The applicant alleges that throughout his high school years, his teachers and teacher’s aides told him that will not succeed as a filmmaker because, his English and punctuation skills were “bad”, his reading and writing skills were at a grade three level and his career choice of being a filmmaker was an unrealistic goal considering his learning limitations. The applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against him by failing to support and assist him in pursuing his career goals as a filmmaker.
3On June 7, 2017, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Incomplete Application and Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (NOID) because it appeared to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Specifically the NOID indicated:
- The Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination described in your Application and you do not appear to have cited facts that constitute “good faith” within the meaning of the HRTO’s case law [s.34(1)]. See for example Thomas v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2009 HRTO 1582, and see for example Diler v. Cambridge Memorial Hospital, 2010 HRTO 1224, for a discussion of “good faith “.
4For the reasons set out below, I have determined that the Application is untimely and should be dismissed for delay.
Analysis and Findings
5Section 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 incidents. 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.
6The applicant alleges that the last discriminatory event took place on April 1, 2005. The Application was filed on April 17, 2017, more than 12 years after the alleged discriminatory event in 2005. The Application is clearly out of time.
7The applicant submitted that the delay in filling the Application was due to either human or technological errors in filling and receiving emails and documentation and/or perhaps his error in deleting emails and/or his physical and learning disabilities. The applicant did not provide any medical documentation to substantiate how his physical or learning disabilities prevented him from filling the Application on time.
8Having considered the applicant’s submissions, I am not satisfied that the applicant has provided a reasonable explanation as to why he did not pursue his rights under the Code in a timely manner. The delay therefore was not incurred in good faith. Accordingly, the Application is untimely and outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
order
9For 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 September, 2017.
“Signed by”
Yasmeena Mohamed
Vice-chair