The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has dismissed an application by a former employee of the William Osler Health System, ruling that her complaint was filed more than two years after the deadline and reject her argument that she received bad legal advice.
L.C., a self-represented applicant, alleged she was subject to sexual harassment and age-based discrimination while working at the health system, but the tribunal found that the delay in filing her claim was unjustified.
Adjudicator Meryl Zisman Gary ruled that the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period established by Ontario’s Human Rights Code. The code stipulates that human rights claims must be filed within one year of the last incident of alleged discrimination, except in cases where a delay is incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice results.
L.C. claimed that the last incident of discrimination occurred in October 2016, but she did not file her application until March 2020, more than two years and seven months after her resignation from William Osler Health System in August 2016. In her submissions, L.C. argued that she had followed legal advice indicating she could not file a claim with the tribunal while other proceedings were ongoing with the College of Nurses of Ontario (CNO).
These proceedings concluded in April 2019, but the tribunal found that there was an unexplained 11-month gap before she filed her application in 2020.
“I find that the applicant has not established that she acted with due diligence in pursuing her Code rights and thus does not satisfy the requirement of good faith under section 34(2) of the Code,” Zisman Gary wrote in the ruling.
The tribunal reviewed L.C.’s arguments, but found no evidence to support her assertion that she received erroneous legal advice regarding the timing of her application. While the tribunal has accepted in other cases that reliance on incorrect advice from a lawyer or licensed paralegal could constitute a good faith explanation for delay, it ruled that this did not apply to this situation. The decision noted that the applicant’s submissions did not clarify whether she received advice from a lawyer, and even if she had, there was no reasonable explanation for the 11-month delay following the CNO’s conclusion.
“The Tribunal has repeatedly held that awaiting the conclusion of another proceeding does not constitute a good faith reason for delay,” the adjudicator stated, citing case law, including Poole v. Trent University and Cartier v. Northeast Mental Health Centre.
The tribunal’s decision also addressed procedural matters related to the respondents named in the application. L.C. had originally named Dr. Frank Martino, the President and CEO of William Osler Health System, as a personal respondent. However, the tribunal found that Martino had been improperly named, as the allegations in the case involved L.C.’s colleagues and manager, rather than Martino personally. The tribunal exercised its discretion to remove Martino from the case, amending the style of cause to list only the William Osler Health System as the respondent.
“The personal respondent is removed, and the style of cause is amended accordingly,” the decision read.
For more information, see Cole v. William Osler Health System, 2024 HRTO 1308 (CanLII).
