HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Shawn Lamb
Applicant
-and-
Sarnia-Lambton Children’s Aid Society and Her Majesty the Queen in Right Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Family and Child Services
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Esi Codjoe
Indexed as: Lamb v. Sarnia-Lambton Children’s Aid Society
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Shawn Lamb, Applicant
Self-represented
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 race, ancestry, ethnic origin, and family status. There appear to be two alleged incidents of discrimination, the first in or around May 1962, and the second in 2008. The applicant did not specify the approximate date of the 2008 incident. The Application was filed approximately nine years later, on April 6, 2017.
2On June 22, 2017, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, 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 provided written submissions.
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 applicant argues that the Application is timely because he is suffering the continuing effects of the alleged discrimination. Namely, that he was unaware of his Indigenous heritage given his adoption, and this led to him experiencing ongoing difficulties in his life. Consequently, the question is whether the Application pertains to one act with continuing effects, or a succession of separate acts. The applicant asserted that there were two acts; the first was his adoption in 1962, and the second his interactions with Sarnia-Lambton Children’s Aid Society in 2008 pertaining to its records. The two acts are discrete and there is a significant temporal difference between them of more than 40 years; therefore they cannot be viewed as a series of incidents. Nonetheless, while discrete, non-continuing violations may have ongoing consequences, they do not amount to a series of incidents under the Code. This is because the applicant has not alleged that there were any fresh steps taken by the respondents; see Garrie v. Janus Joan Inc., 2012 HRTO 1955. As such the Application is not timely on this basis.
8It also appears that the applicant is asserting that he was not aware of his right to file an application. However, a lack of knowledge about one’s rights will only amount to good faith if an applicant establishes that he or she had no reason to make inquiries about his or her rights sooner. See Simmons v. Ontario (Transportation), 2010 HRTO 1884; Stewart v. Mitten Vinyl, 2010 HRTO 1628; Arcuri v. Cambridge Memorial Hospital, 2010 HRTO 578.
9In this case, the applicant has not provided a reasonable explanation as to why he did not inquire about his rights under the Code 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
10For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed as untimely and therefore outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Dated at Toronto, this 31st day of July, 2017.
“Signed by”
Esi Codjoe
Vice-chair