The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discriminatory pension plan provisions.
The respondent sought early dismissal, arguing the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.
The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to ongoing written communications and advocacy between his counsel and the respondent prior to filing.
The Tribunal held that, consistent with established jurisprudence, pursuing rights in another forum or engaging in ongoing negotiations does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal also ruled that the applicant's counsel could continue to act for him, as the correspondence would likely not be relevant to outstanding issues.
