Misunderstanding of last incident of alleged discrimination not a good-faith reason for delay
The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed a worker’s discrimination complaint that was filed one day beyond the statutory deadline of one year after the actual last incident of discrimination.
The worker was an employee of Tim Horton’s Foundation Camps, a youth development program. She alleged workplace discrimination in the summer of 2023 and the camp conducted an internal investigation from Aug. 4 to 18. The worker also sought legal advice and told colleagues that she was gathering documentation to pursue a human rights claim.
The camp informed the worker of the investigation’s results on Aug. 20 – that no discrimination had been found. The camp also terminated the worker’s employment the same day.
The worker received the written investigation report nine days later, on Aug. 29. She continued to consult with legal counsel and sought advice from the Ontario Ministry of Labour about her rights. This led to her filing a complaint with the Ministry in September 2023.
Discrimination, sexual harassment complaint
The worker filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and sexual harassment with the tribunal on Aug. 21, 2024. She alleged that the last incident of discrimination was the camp giving her the written investigation report on Aug. 29, 2023.
However, the tribunal found that the worker’s receipt of the investigation report couldn’t stand on its own as a new incident of discrimination or part of a series of discriminatory incidents. Rather, it was “a continuation of the effects of the events that occurred earlier,” the tribunal said in finding that the last incident of alleged discrimination was Aug. 20, 2023, when the camp informed the worker of the results of the report and terminated her employment.
The Ontario Human Rights Code stipulates a one-year limitation period from the date of the last alleged incident of discrimination. As a result, the worker filed her application one day past the deadline.
The tribunal noted that the code allows for an extension of the deadline if the delay in filing was in good faith, but the onus on the applicant was high.
Limitation period
However, the worker didn’t provide an explanation for the delay in filing her application more than a year after the last incident. The tribunal found that this was likely because the worker mistakenly believed that receiving the written investigation report dated Aug. 29, 2023, marked the final incident. However, Tribunal said that this misunderstanding didn’t satisfy the good-faith requirement.
The tribunal noted that the worker had actively pursued her rights before and following her termination, including seeking legal advice, contacting the Ministry of Labour, and filing a complaint with the Ministry in September 2023.
“This tribunal has consistently held that ignorance of the law is no excuse in matters relating to delay in asserting one’s rights unless the applicant had a reason for not enquiring into their rights,” said the tribunal. “In fact, [the worker’s] actions before before and after the termination of her employment – the last incident of alleged discrimination - undermine any argument she might have made that her failure to file an application in time was in good faith.”
Noting that the one-year limitation period is designed to ensure due diligence for people to pursue their human rights and to address such complaints within a reasonable amount of time, the tribunal dismissed the worker’s application as untimely.
See Rowsell v. Tim Horton’s Foundation Camps, 2025 HRTO 1360.
