Christianson v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2008 HRTO 97

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 Attorney General Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: September 23, 2008 Citation: 2008 HRTO 97 Indexed as: Christianson v. Ontario (Attorney General)

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 655 Bay Street, 14th Floor Toronto ON M7A 2A3 Phone (416) 326-1312 / 1-866-598-0322 / Fax (416) 326-2199 / Toll Free 1-866-355-6099 TTY (416) 314-2379 / 1-800-424-1168 E-mail hrto.registrar@ontario.ca Website www.hrto.ca

Written Submissions By

Michael Christianson, Applicant ) On His Own Behalf

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario ) as represented by the Attorney General, ) Kisha Chatterjee, Counsel Respondent ) )

1The applicant filed an Application on September 5, 2008, under section 34 of Part IV 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 respondent Attorney General filed a response to the request to expedite (Form 15), 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 referred to above, the request to expedite is denied. The circumstances are not so particularly urgent as to distinguish this Application from other cases before the Tribunal.

4In its response to the request to expedite, the respondent Attorney General also indicated that it was improperly named in the application as “Windsor, Ontario Provincial Court”. The application is therefore amended to reflect the correct name of the respondent Attorney General, as follows: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General. I am not seized of this matter.