States v. York University, 2009 HRTO 1015

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tom States

Applicant

-and-

York University, The Governing Council of the University of Toronto, Sean Gill and Pauline Moralas

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: July 13, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1015

Indexed as: States v. York University

1This is an Application filed on June 22, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in employment and housing on the basis of a number of specified grounds. In describing the events which are alleged to be discriminatory, the applicant, who is a teaching assistant and graduate student at York University, refers to an investigation into his conduct initiated by or on behalf of the two individual respondents, which has led to various consequences for his professional and personal life.

2The applicant filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings along with his Application. The time for responding to the Request has elapsed and the Tribunal has received Responses to the Request to Expedite from two respondents, University of Toronto and York University. The copies of the Application sent to the individual respondents have been returned to the Tribunal as undeliverable.

3York University and University of Toronto oppose expedition of the Application.

4Based on the information provided by the University of Toronto, the style of cause is amended to reflect its proper name. The University of Toronto states that it intends to submit in its Response to the Application that it is not a proper party. The Tribunal directs the University of Toronto to file a Request for Order During Proceedings in Form 10 requesting that it be removed as a party, along with its Response to the Application.

REQUEST TO EXPEDITE

5In his Application, the applicant describes how the extension of the investigation into his “personal life” resulted in him having to move twice and incur various costs, although the precise relationship between the allegations and the impact on him is not readily apparent. Further, in explaining the financial remedy he seeks, he refers to the fact that he was made temporarily homeless and had to live out of his office on campus. These facts are also relied on in support his Request to Expedite where among other things, the applicant states that he has been made homeless and destitute and forced to move twice. In describing the harm that would result if his Request to Expedite is not granted, the applicant states that now that he is seeing a medical professional, it would be “helpful” if the harassment would stop.

6The respondent York University submits that the matter should not be expedited. Among other things, the respondent University notes that the applicant is now on an extended visit to the United States. Further, they state that to move the matter expeditiously to a hearing may make a future resolution more difficult to achieve for all parties involved and make it difficult if not “[im]possible” to permit the University to continue in its efforts to assist the applicant. The respondent University of Toronto relies on the submissions of York University.

7The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide for applications to be dealt with in an expedited manner in urgent circumstances. Rule 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 requires an applicant seeking an expedited application to identify any 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.

8In Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 53, at para. 9 the Tribunal held that, 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. In this case, the applicant is primarily relying on his difficult financial circumstances and his living situation. However, even on the applicant’s materials filed, there is some ambiguity as to his precise circumstances and it is not readily apparent how the allegations are linked to his personal circumstances. Further, the respondent York University states that the applicant is now on an extended visit to the United States, a fact that the applicant has not challenged.

8Having considered the foregoing, even accepting that the applicant is encountering difficult financial circumstances which have impacted on his living situation, it is not apparent that expediting the file is required to ensure that the Tribunal is able to conduct a fair and just hearing of the merits and/or provide a fair and just result to the parties. Finally, even accepting the applicant’s description of his circumstances, in my view it is not clear that the harm the applicant alleges – that it would be “helpful” that the harassment stop - is an urgent circumstance which warrants giving his Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters.

9In all the circumstances, the Tribunal does not find that this Request to Expedite meets the threshold required by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence. The Request to Expedite is denied.

Addresses For Service

10The addresses submitted for the two individual respondents appear to be incorrect. In order for the Application to proceed against these individuals, the Tribunal must have proper contact information for them. The Tribunal therefore directs that the Applicant immediately provide proper addresses for service for the two individual respondents so that the Application can be re-served along with a copy of this interim Decision.