limitation periods, appointment of litigation guardians, requests for interim remedies,
requests to expedite applications, requests for anonymity, requests for accommodation
during Tribunal hearings, summary hearing procedures, mediation, applications to
enforce settlements, and requests for reconsideration. Choice of forum is particularly
important to consider when evaluating whether to file a human rights application or,
alternatively, to raise human rights arguments in the context of another administrative
law claim.
Lawyers, paralegals and others who represent persons making human rights
applications should be aware that section 34(1) of the Code provides that human rights
applications must be made within one year of the alleged incident of discrimination or
the last incident in a series.^10 Section 34(2) provides that applications may be
submitted after the expiry of this limitation period if the applicant can demonstrate that
the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any
person affected by the delay.^11
A variety of CLE materials that address substantive and procedural issues in Ontario
human rights law is available. The Law Society of Upper Canada and the Ontario Bar
Association may be able to provide access to relevant CLE. The Ontario Human Rights
whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has
appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.” This provision was most recently interpreted by
the Tribunal in Claybourn v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 1298 (CanLII). In Claybournthe
Tribunal considered the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in Penner v. Niagara (Regional Police
Services Board), 2013 SCC 19 (CanLII), British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola,
2011 SCC 52 (CanLII), and Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., 2001 SCC 44 (CanLII). The Tribunal
found that the appropriate interpretation of s. 45.1 does not permit the dismissal of a human rights
application when this would lead to unfairness, given the nature of the other proceeding and difference in
the issues at stake in that process. 10
There is a body of jurisprudence regarding what constitutes a “series of incidents” for the purposes of s.
34(1). See, for example, Garrie v. Janus Joan Inc., 2012 HRTO 1955 (CanLII);Labao v. Toronto Police
Services Board, 2012 HRTO 1529 (CanLII); AlSaigh v. University of Ottawa, 2012 HRTO 2 (CanLII);
Pakarian v. Chen, 2010 HRTO 457 (CanLII); Savage v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2010 HRTO 1360
(CanLII); 11 Plihronakos v. Mississauga (City), 2010 HRTO 1433 (CanLII).
There is a body of jurisprudence regarding which circumstances the Tribunal will permit an application
to be filed beyond the one year limitation period. See, for example: Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles Real
Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241 (CanLII); Klein and Dionne v. Toronto (City), 2011 HRTO 317 (CanLII).