[2] While the Application indicates that the last incident of discrimination occurred on September 15, 2019, a review of the Application revealed that the alleged discrimination took place prior to or on February 2, 2019. As a result, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“Notice”) advising the applicant that the Application is either not clear as to what incident of discrimination is alleged to have occurred on September 15, 2019, or how the incident described as occurring on that date constitutes an incident of discrimination within the meaning of the Code. The Notice requested that the applicant make further submissions on the jurisdictional issue.
[3] In the Notice, the Tribunal also advised the applicant that a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent.
[4] The applicant filed submissions in response to the Notice and changed the date of the last incident to July 2020, which is the date the applicant claims that they discovered that the rental unit was rented to a new tenant.
[5] This Decision was made following a hearing in writing. As noted by the Divisional Court in Iyirhiaro v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and TTC, 2012 ONSC 3015, the Tribunal is not required to hold an oral hearing on the issue of its jurisdiction.
FINDINGS
[6] For the reasons set out below, the Application is untimely and, therefore, outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
[7] To proceed in the Tribunal’s process, an application must fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. An adjudicative body either has jurisdiction or it does not. See G.L. v. OHIP (General Manager), 2014 ONSC 5392; Groblicki v. Watts Water, 2021 HRTO 461 (“Groblicki”).
[8] Subsection 34(1) 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) of the Code allows for a filing of an Application outside of the time limit only 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 they did not pursue their rights under the Code in a timely manner. Unless the above provisions are satisfied, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to address the Application.
[9] The Tribunal has set a high onus on applicants to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. See, for example, Klein v. Toronto Zionist Council, 2009 HRTO 241. The mandatory one-year limitation period is consistent with the Code’s objective that human rights claims should be dealt with fairly, justly, and expeditiously. Thus, the Code requires an individual to act with all due diligence, and file their application within one year, when they seek to pursue a human rights claim.
[10] The applicant indicated in the Application that they moved out of the rental unit on February 11, 2019 after receiving an N12 notice.
[11] In the submissions in response to the Notice, the applicant claims that in July 2020 they learned that the rental unit had been rented by a new tenant in September 2019. They claim that it was at that time that they viewed the N12 notice as discrimination for seeking accommodations prior to issuance of the N12 notice.
[12] Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the Application was filed more than one year after the applicant received the N12 notice and was evicted. As a result, it is untimely.
[13] However, the Tribunal may accept an untimely application if the delay in filing the application was incurred in good faith. I find that the applicant has failed to establish a good faith explanation for their delay.
[14] In the submissions in response to the Notice, the applicant indicated that their disabilities, a period of homelessness (from February 11, 2019 to February 20, 2019), and their subsequent living arrangement were the reason for the late filing of the Application. The applicant claims that they were “physically not capable of even beginning to address the issues giving rise to [the Application]”.
[15] I accept that the applicant has a disability, however, this assertion does not provide a complete answer to the lengthy delay in filing this Application.
[16] The Tribunal has consistently held in order for a medical condition to establish good faith within the meaning of subsection 34(2) of the Code, medical evidence is required to demonstrate that the disability was so debilitating as to prevent the applicant from pursuing their legal rights under the Code. See Dionne v. Toronto (City), 2011 HRTO 317 at para 9; Reid v. Ontario March of Dimes, 2009 HRTO 2207; Downer v. Little & Jarrett, 2010 HRTO 992 and Savage v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2010 HRTO 1360.
[17] Unfortunately, the applicant did not provide any evidence to demonstrate that their disability was so debilitating as to prevent the applicant from pursuing their rights under the Code.
[18] Given these circumstances, I find that the applicant does not satisfy the requirement of good faith under subsection 34(2) of the Code.
[19] Since the applicant has failed to establish a good faith explanation for their delay, it is unnecessary for me to address the question of whether the respondent would be prejudiced by the delay. See Esanu v. Georgetown Men’s Non-Contact Hockey League, 2009 HRTO 579.
[20] In these circumstances, I find that the Application must be dismissed on the basis that the allegations of discrimination are untimely.
ORDER
[21] For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed as untimely and, therefore, outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction."
Disclaimer:
You should not act or rely on any information provided in this blog. It is not legal advice, and the content is provided for general discussion and general information purposes only and to help encourage further research. To ensure your interests are protected, retain or formally seek legal advice from a licensed legal professional.
Never disclose details about your specific legal matters outside of situations when you have established solicitor-client relationship with a qualified legal professional. By using this blog, you acknowledge and accept this warning and agree to waive all liability for use of any information contained in this blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment