Quintieri v. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1153

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Andrew Quintieri by his next friend John Quintieri Applicant

-and-

Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, George Prajza and John Kostoff Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: July 28, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1153 Indexed as: Quintieri v. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board

1This is an Application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The allegation is that the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board (the institutional respondent) has refused to provide a dedicated Education Resource Worker (ERW) for Andrew Quintieri (the applicant) when he attends senior kindergarten at one of the institutional respondent's schools beginning in September 2009. The Application also names two personal respondents, the institutional respondent's Director of Education, John Kostoff, and its Superintendent of Schools responsible for the school which the applicant will attend, George Prajza.

2The Application was filed by the applicant's father, John Quintieri, who believes the applicant's safety will be compromised if he is not provided with a dedicated ERW. Mr. Quintieri makes reference in the Application to the safety-related difficulties the applicant had during the 2008-2009 school year as reasons for his concerns for the upcoming school year. Mr. Quintieri has filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings along with the Application.

3The 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.

4In 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.

5The respondents oppose the Request to Expedite. The respondents argue that the issues in the Application are broader than simply whether the applicant will receive a dedicated ERW and that they are about the nature of the applicant's educational needs and strengths and the nature of the overall educational programming and supports provided by the institutional respondent. The respondents argue these are complex issues requiring a full hearing with significant expert testimony and that an expedited process may prejudice the ability of the Tribunal to fairly and justly make a determination regarding the allegations of discrimination. The respondents also argue that the concern is how the institutional respondent will treat the applicant beginning in September 2009 and that this concern is speculative in nature and, as such, not suited to an expedited process.

6Having reviewed the parties' submissions and materials, I do not find that this request to expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal's jurisprudence. I do not question the sincerity and concern expressed by Mr. Quintieri about the safety of his child and requests to expedite applications related to young persons receiving appropriate education services are understandable. However, Mr. Quintieri is essentially raising concerns about the respondents' future actions-- what they will do beginning in September 2009-- which are, at this point, speculative. I further believe that resolving the Application may well require consideration of the overall educational services provided to the applicant and not just consideration of the deployment of an ERW and that this would likely be a complex and involved process that, to be fairly decided, would likely require time. Given these circumstances, the Request to Expedite Proceedings is denied.

7The respondents have indicated a willingness to attend mediation and the applicant has indicated a possible interest. If the applicant agrees to mediation, the Tribunal will schedule a mediation on the earliest possible date which is mutually agreeable to the parties.

8I am not seized.