Peekhaus v. Second Street Daycare Inc., 2009 HRTO 1048

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jennifer Peekhaus

Applicant

-and-

Second Street Daycare Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: July 15, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1048

Indexed as: Peekhaus v. Second Street Daycare Inc.

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on May 1, 2009 alleging discrimination by her employer on the basis of sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). On June 30, 2009, the applicant filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing her desire to have this matter resolved quickly and ongoing emotional stress.

2The 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.

3In 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.

4The respondent has not responded to the Request to Expedite. Having reviewed the applicant’s materials, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence.

5The Tribunal has held that the types of factors cited by the applicant do not generally constitute indications of urgency as compared with other employment discrimination cases. Without questioning the sincerity of the applicant’s concerns, in my view, the harm the applicant alleges she will suffer is not an urgent circumstance

which warrants giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters. The Request to Expedite is denied.