Christianson v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care), 2008 HRTO 348

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Christianson

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and Michael Lai

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: December 3, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 348

Indexed as: Christianson v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Michael Christianson, Applicant ) On His Own Behalf

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario ) as represented by the Minister of Health and ) Beth Beattie, Counsel Long-Term Care, Respondent )

Michael Lai, Respondent ) Naomi D. Loewith, ) Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on November 13, 2008, pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in the area of goods, services and facilities on the basis of disability and reprisal. The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings (Form 14), pursuant to Rule 21 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for applications under Part IV of the Code (the “Rules”). The respondents filed responses to the Request to Expedite, opposing the request.

2Rule 21.1 provides that an applicant may request “that the Tribunal deal with an Application on an expedited basis in circumstances which require an urgent resolution of the issues in dispute”. Rule 21.2 and Form 14 require that a request to expedite proceedings describe urgent circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the Application and the harm that would result if the request is denied. Further, in Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 53, the Tribunal held as follows, at paragraph 9:

For a request to expedite to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate that the circumstances are truly urgent, requiring the resolution of the human rights dispute in a particularly rapid manner as compared with the time required to complete the Tribunal’s regular process.

3Having reviewed the materials filed, and having regard to the Tribunal’s Rules and the decision in Weerawardane, supra, the Request to Expedite is denied. The circumstances are not so particularly urgent as to distinguish this Application from other cases before the Tribunal.

4The Application named “Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care” as an organizational respondent. The Tribunal has amended the name of the organizational respondent to properly identify it as “Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care”.

5I am not seized of this matter.