Adrienne Jarabek v. OC Transpo and the City of Ottawa, 2009 HRTO 1094

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Adrienne Jarabek Applicant

-and-

OC Transpo and the City of Ottawa Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: David A. Wright Date: July 22, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1094 Indexed as: Jarabek v. OC Transpo

1This is an Application alleging that the respondents’ decision, effective July 1, 2009, to offer student bus passes only to those under the age of 27 is discriminatory contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant has filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing the effects of the additional cost of a bus pass on students over the age of 27 and the need for immediate action to “set a precedent to municipalities that they should ensure by-laws/policies are non-discriminatory before enactment”.

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.

4In accordance with Rules 5.2 and 21.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal does not require a Response to Request to Expedite from the respondents. Having reviewed the applicant’s materials, this Request to Expedite does not meet the high threshold required by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence. In particular, the financial pressures and circumstances the applicant describes do not warrant giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters. The Request to Expedite is denied.

5It appears to the Tribunal that there is an issue about whether this Application is within its jurisdiction. OC Transpo has been found to be a federally-regulated business to which the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, and not the Code, applies; see Morgan v. Ottawa (City), 2008 HRTO 145.

6The Tribunal finds it appropriate to request further information and submissions on the issue of its jurisdiction. The applicant must explain to the Tribunal why she believes this Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. She must file these submissions in writing, with copies to the respondents, no later than August 12, 2009. The respondents have until August 26, 2009 to respond to those submissions. The applicant may reply by September 2, 2009. Following receipt of those submissions, the Application may be dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 13.

7Pending a decision on the issue of jurisdiction, the respondents need not file a substantive Response.

8I am not seized of this matter.