Anica Visic v. Elia Associates, 2008 HRTO 443

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Anica Visic

Applicant

-and-

Elia Associates, Richard Elia and Patricia Elia

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: December 30, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 443

Indexed as: Visic v. Elia Associates

1The applicant filed an Application under Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment and membership in a vocational association on the basis of disability and reprisal. At the same time, she also filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings (Form 14). This interim decision addresses the request to expedite.

2The expedited hearing process is available where the circumstances of an application “require an urgent resolution of the issues in dispute.” [see Rule 21.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure] Thus, when requesting an expedited proceeding, “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.” [see Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 53]

3The applicant’s request for an expedited proceeding is based on the fact that the deadline for her call to the bar is April 2009. The respondents oppose the request, saying, inter alia, that the applicant’s employment with them ended over one year ago, and that she ought not to be permitted to wait for that period and then expect her matter to be dealt with on an expedited basis.

4The applicant states that her employment was terminated on November 28, 2007. She alleges that the respondents’ most recent act of reprisal took place on December 24, 2007, and that she became aware of it on January 18, 2008. The applicant, however, did not file her Application until November 28, 2008. In her Application, the applicant states she attended a mediation with the respondents, through the Discrimination and Harassment Counsel of the Law Society of Upper Canada, on May 8, 2008. She states further a settlement was reached on that date, but alleges that the respondents have not fully complied with its terms. She provides no explanation for why she waited over six months after this mediation to file her Application.

5Having reviewed the materials filed by the applicant and the respondents, there is no basis for concluding that the circumstances in this matter are urgent, requiring the resolution of her dispute in a particularly rapid manner as compared with the time required to complete the Tribunal’s regular process. Accordingly, the applicant’s request to expedite is denied.

6I am not seized of this matter.