HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Hyacinth Harrison
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Police Service 12 Division
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Eban Bayefsky
Indexed as: Harrison v. Toronto Police Service 12 Division
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Hyacinth Harrison, 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 a police investigation on April 15, 2014. The Application was filed more than a year later on April 7, 2017.
2On June 23, 2017, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“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 explained that she “faced several challenges” which prevented her from filing her Application in a timely manner. These included suffering from stress, depression and a shoulder injury, having difficulties with her landlord, being “displaced” from her previous residence, and experiencing a “series of traumatizing events” with police departments and the Toronto Transit Commission.
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 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.
7The Tribunal does accept that a delay may be in good faith because of an applicant’s disability. See Dionne v. Toronto (City), 2011 HRTO 317. However, the Tribunal has consistently ruled that it requires medical evidence that the disability was so debilitating that it prevented an applicant from pursuing his or her legal rights under the Code. See for example Reid v. Ontario March of Dimes, 2009 HRTO 2207; Downer v. Little & Jarrett, 2010 HRTO 992; Savage v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2010 HRTO 1360 and James v. York University, 2015 ONSC 2234 (Div. Ct.) at paras. 45 – 50. In this case, the applicant has not provided the Tribunal with any information that could establish that her disability prevented her from pursuing her legal rights under the Code in a timely way.
8Similarly, the applicant has not provided any details of the difficulties she experienced with her landlord, finding new accommodation or the other “traumatizing events” to which she refers. Nor has she provided any information that these difficulties prevented her from applying to the Tribunal within a year of the alleged discrimination. I note that the applicant stated that one of the new problems she experienced with the police “led [her] to travelling to various different offices across the GTA….” I see no reason that the applicant could not have filed her human rights Application in a more timely fashion.
9As 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
10For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed as untimely and therefore outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of July, 2017.
“Signed By”
Eban Bayefsky
Vice-chair