The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed a discrimination complaint from a job applicant who waited too long to file her case, even though the school board took months to respond to her requests for interview feedback.
M.L., who has a visual impairment, applied for a position on Upper Grand District School Board‘s occasional teacher roster in 2018. She filed her human rights complaint in August 2019, more than a year after the alleged discrimination occurred during her job interview and hiring process.
The tribunal ruled it had no jurisdiction to hear the case because L. missed the one-year deadline required under Ontario’s Human Rights Code and failed to provide a good reason for the delay.
Interview and hiring process
L. interviewed for the teaching position on July 12, 2018, before a three-person panel. During the interview, she disclosed her disability and asked if accommodations would be provided if hired. A panelist responded “in a curt tone” that she would “of course” be accommodated, but the panel provided no further information about the accommodation process or her specific needs.
The school board notified L. by email on July 27, 2018, that she was not the successful candidate.
Believing she was qualified for the job based on her skills and positive references, L. requested feedback on her interview performance on Aug. 1, 2018. The board’s human resources representative initially declined, citing the “potential volume of requests” and saying they could not provide feedback to unsuccessful candidates.
Months of follow-up
After L. pushed for more information, the manager of secondary staffing and recruitment suggested a phone call in August 2018. When phone attempts failed, L. requested feedback by email in September.
L. says she followed up monthly without receiving replies until February 2019, when the manager finally responded that she “did not receive the minimum scores required.” When L. sought more detailed information, the board replied in March 2019 that it would not provide further details as it lacked “the resources to provide specific feedback to candidates.”
L. alleged the school board discriminated against her during the interview, that her protected characteristics influenced the hiring decision, and that the delayed responses and lack of substantive feedback constituted discrimination and reprisal.
Tribunal’s analysis of timing
Since L. filed her complaint on Aug. 22, 2019, she needed to show at least one incident of discrimination occurred on or after Aug. 22, 2018, to meet the Human Rights Code’s one-year limitation period.
The interview, hiring decision and initial refusal to provide feedback all occurred before that date. Only the board’s delayed responses and final refusal to provide detailed feedback happened after the deadline.
The tribunal found these later events were not separate acts of discrimination but rather “continuing effects” of the decision not to hire L.
The adjudicator noted L. provided no facts connecting her protected characteristics to the board’s refusal to provide feedback, stating that an “applicant’s mere suspicion or belief, no matter how strongly held, is not evidence that discrimination has occurred.”
L. also didn’t allege she was treated differently than the 30 other unsuccessful candidates, and didn’t dispute that the board didn’t provide feedback to any unsuccessful occasional teacher applicants at that time.
Reprisal claim fails
L. also argued the board’s refusal to provide feedback constituted reprisal under the Human Rights Code, which protects people from retaliation for claiming their rights.
To prove reprisal, applicants must show an action was taken against them, that it related to claiming or attempting to enforce Code rights, and that the respondent intended to retaliate.
The tribunal found L. “did not assert that she claimed or attempted to enforce her rights under the Code,” failing to meet the second requirement for a reprisal claim.
Good faith explanation insufficient
Even when applications are filed late, tribunals can accept them if applicants provide a good faith explanation for the delay and no substantial harm would result.
L. argued she acted in good faith by trying to resolve the matter directly with the school board before filing her complaint, and that the board “thwarted her attempts to gain clarity.”
However, the tribunal said pursuing other avenues “will not, in and of itself, constitute a good faith reason to justify late filing,” particularly when applicants could have filed timely complaints while continuing other efforts.
The adjudicator noted L. had reason to investigate her rights early in the limitation period, as she requested written responses in August 2018 because she had a “suspicion that something was awry.”
Since L. didn’t show anything prevented her from filing while also engaging with the board, her attempts to resolve the matter directly weren’t sufficient to justify the late filing.
Jurisdictional issue
L. complained it was unfair that the tribunal, rather than the school board, raised the timing issue, and that it came up late in the process as parties prepared for a hearing on the merits.
While acknowledging it was “unfortunate” the jurisdictional issue wasn’t raised earlier, the tribunal emphasized this was a matter of jurisdiction, not discretion. “Questions of fairness or prejudice do not give the Tribunal jurisdiction that it does not have otherwise,” the decision stated.
For more information, see Lopez v. Upper Grand District School Board, 2025 HRTO 1344 (CanLII).
