James v. York University et al., 2015 ONSC 2234
| Judge | Sachs, Hambly and Edwards, JJ. |
| Court | Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada) |
| Case Date | March 04, 2015 |
| Jurisdiction | Ontario |
| Citations | 2015 ONSC 2234;(2015), 339 O.A.C. 68 (DC) |
James v. York Univ. (2015), 339 O.A.C. 68 (DC)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. AU.007
Paul James (applicant) v. York University and Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (respondents)
(206/14; 2015 ONSC 2234)
Indexed As: James v. York University et al.
Court of Ontario
Superior Court of Justice
Divisional Court
Sachs, Hambly and Edwards, JJ.
June 23, 2015.
Summary:
In 2009, a soccer coach, who had crack cocaine addiction issues, resigned his position at a university. In 2012, he filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), alleging that the university had discriminated against him on the basis of his addiction and that he had been forced to resign. The HRTO dismissed the application because it was filed outside the one year limitation period in s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code. The coach sought reconsideration of that decision, which was also denied by the HRTO. The coach applied for judicial review of both the HRTO's decisions.
The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application.
Civil Rights - Topic 7118
Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Limitation period (incl. extension of) - A soccer coach, who had crack cocaine addiction issues, resigned his position at a university - He filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), alleging that discrimination at the university forced him to resign - The HRTO dismissed the application because it was filed outside the one year limitation period (Human Rights Code, s. 34(1)), and the coach failed to file medical evidence to show that the delay in filing the application was incurred in good faith (s. 34(2)) - An application to reconsider was also denied by the HRTO, as there were no exceptional circumstances such as to outweigh the public interest in the finality of the tribunal's decisions - The coach applied for judicial review, arguing that he was unable, because of his addiction, to file the application on time - The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application - The HRTO's decisions were reasonable and fair - See paragraphs 45 to 61.
Cases Noticed:
Dionne v. Toronto (City), 2011 HRTO 317, refd to. [para. 16].
Shaw et al. v. Phipps et al. (2012), 289 O.A.C. 163; 347 D.L.R.(4th) 616; 2012 ONCA 155, refd to. [para. 37].
Miller v. Prudential Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241, refd to. [para. 38].
Iyirhiaro v. Human Rights Tribunal (Ont.) et al. (2012), 294 O.A.C. 386; 2012 ONSC 3015 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43].
Board of Education of Toronto v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation District 15 et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 487; 208 N.R. 245; 98 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 57].
Statutes Noticed:
Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H-19, sect. 34(1) [para. 7]; sect. 34(2) [para. 21].
Counsel:
Paul James, in person;
Lisa Constantine, for York University;
Brian A. Blumenthal, for Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
This application was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on March 4, 2015, before Sachs, Hambly and Edwards, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The following decision was released for the court, by Edwards, J., on June 23, 2015.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taucar v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2017 ONSC 2604
...v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2013 ONSC 4658, 311 O.A.C. 35 (Div. Ct.), at para. 18; and James v. York University, 2015 ONSC 2234, 339 O.A.C. 68 (Div. Ct.), at para. [46] Paragraph 56 of the applicant’s factum appears to advance the correctness standard. However, in fair......
-
Laksaman v. Aramark,
...own proceedings in a manner that is expeditious and offers an efficient resolution for the parties (see: James v York University et al., 2015 ONSC 2234; Taucar v Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2017 ONSC [35] The HRTO’s de......
-
Mehedi v. Mondalez Bakery,
...exercise of discretion is thus entitled to a high degree of deference: Paul James v. York University and Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, 2015 ONSC 2234, at para. 57. We see no reason to interfere with the Reconsideration Was the Applicant Denied Procedural Fairness? [20] &#x......
-
Zhang v. Human Rights Tribunal, 2018 ONSC 3987
...a finding the delay was incurred in good faith as there was no reasonable explanation for the delay provided: James v. York University, 2015 ONSC 2234, 339 O.A.C. 68 at para. 52. As well, it was proper for the adjudicator to find the respondent had no reasonable explanation for the delay gi......
-
Taucar v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2017 ONSC 2604
...v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2013 ONSC 4658, 311 O.A.C. 35 (Div. Ct.), at para. 18; and James v. York University, 2015 ONSC 2234, 339 O.A.C. 68 (Div. Ct.), at para. [46] Paragraph 56 of the applicant’s factum appears to advance the correctness standard. However, in fair......
-
Laksaman v. Aramark,
...own proceedings in a manner that is expeditious and offers an efficient resolution for the parties (see: James v York University et al., 2015 ONSC 2234; Taucar v Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2017 ONSC [35] The HRTO’s de......
-
Mehedi v. Mondalez Bakery,
...exercise of discretion is thus entitled to a high degree of deference: Paul James v. York University and Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, 2015 ONSC 2234, at para. 57. We see no reason to interfere with the Reconsideration Was the Applicant Denied Procedural Fairness? [20] &#x......
-
Zhang v. Human Rights Tribunal, 2018 ONSC 3987
...a finding the delay was incurred in good faith as there was no reasonable explanation for the delay provided: James v. York University, 2015 ONSC 2234, 339 O.A.C. 68 at para. 52. As well, it was proper for the adjudicator to find the respondent had no reasonable explanation for the delay gi......