Another recent interim decision on the one year limitation under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Section 34 of the Code provides that:
34 (1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,
(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or
(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.
(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.
The Tribunal in the Cashin decision held that:
In order to satisfy the Tribunal that the 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. The Tribunal has set a fairly high onus on applicants to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, while recognizing that there will be legitimate circumstances that justify exercising the discretion under section 34(2). [Emphasis added]
A leading case is Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles Real Estate where the Tribunal made a number of observations:
- Where an applicant seeks to establish that a delay in filing an application was “incurred” in good faith, the applicant must show something more than simply an absence of bad faith. Otherwise, there would be little meaning to the statutory limitation period. (Paragraph 24)
- The Code requires an individual to act with all due diligence, and file their application within one year, when they may seek to pursue a human rights claim. (Paragraph 24)
- In dealing with requests that applications be considered outside the one-year limitation period, the Tribunal has set a fairly high onus on applicants to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, while recognizing that there will be legitimate circumstances, often related to the human rights claim itself, that justifies exercising the discretion under section 34(2). (Paragraph 25)
- A delay may be found not to have been incurred in good faith where a party says simply that they were not aware of their rights, and made no inquires about options for pursuing the alleged wrong. (Paragraph 25)
