NC-111 - Harassment

The Appellant filed an appeal of the Respondent’s decision to dismiss his harassment complaint 29 days after he received that decision. Under applicable legislation, a member must file his or her appeal within 14 days after the day on which a copy of the decision is served. However, the limitation period may be extended if an extension is deemed warranted in the circumstances.

The Appellant does not contest that he submitted this appeal outside the applicable 14-day statutory time limit. The sole issue to be addressed is therefore whether an extension of the limitation period is warranted. 

In applying the four-factor test adopted by the Federal Court of Canada in Canada (Attorney General) v. Pentney, 2008 FC 96, the ERC finds that the Appellant has not met his burden in demonstrating that he had a continuing intention to pursue the matter or that there was a reasonable explanation for his delay in filing this appeal. As a result, the ERC concludes that an extension of the statutory limitation period is not warranted and that the appeal should be denied because it is out of time.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be denied. 

The Commissioner’s decision, as summarized by her office, is as follows:

The Appellant challenged the Respondent’s determination that allegations of harassment he made were not established. Although the limitation period is 14 days, the Appellant did not file his appeal until 29 days after receiving the decision.

The appeal was referred to the ERC which found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that he had a continuing intention to pursue the matter or that there was a reasonable explanation for the delay. The ERC concluded that an extension of the prescription period was not warranted. The adjudicator agreed with the ERC and dismissed the appeal.