Christianson v. University of Windsor, 2008 HRTO 439

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Christianson

Applicant

-and-

University of Windsor

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: December 30, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 439

Indexed as: Christianson v. University of Windsor

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on November 28, 2008 pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges, among other things, discrimination on the basis of disability, relating to events in the early 1990’s, and the applicant’s subsequent attempts to obtain records relevant to those events.

2Included with the Application was a Request to Expedite Proceedings (Form 14). The respondent has filed a Response to Request to Expedite Proceedings (Form 15) but have not yet filed a Response to the Application. This Interim Decision addresses the request to expedite.

3The expedited hearing process is available where the circumstances of an application “require an urgent resolution of the issues in dispute.” [see Rule 21.1].

4In Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 53, the Vice-Chair noted that the Tribunal is committed to a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of human rights applications, and its process is designed for timely resolution of all such disputes. The Vice-Chair commented:

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.

5In his Request to Expedite Proceedings, the Applicant submits that the test in the Weerawardane decision should not be followed in his case because, in his view, his Application is related to criminal matters which are urgent, whereas in Weerawardane, the request for an expedited proceeding was based on the financial consequences of a recent loss of employment.

6In my view, the applicant has not established that his Application must be dealt with on an expedited basis. The circumstances that are alleged in the Application appear to have occurred many years ago. While I appreciate that the applicant wishes to have his concerns addressed quickly, I am unable to conclude that the circumstances of an Application require urgent resolution.

7All time requirements under the Rules remain in effect, including the requirement for the respondent to deliver and file the Response to Application by January 15, 2009.

8I am not seized of this matter.