Tohidy v. Algonquin College, 2009 HRTO 1230

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Davoud Tohidy

Applicant

-and-

Algonquin College, Helen Pearce, Tanya Hawley, Steve Griffith, Robert Mckenzie, Patrick Denny, Lisa Mooney, Tristan Roscoe, Amel Dedic, Patti McConville, Cynthia Gee, Esther Schvan, Barbara Stacey, Raphael Gera, Mary Coulas-Boucher, Jo-Hsin Chen, Susan Ramsay, Jill Wood, Charles Carss, Julie Bruno, Matt Gifford, Helena Achia and Natalie Rice

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: August 7, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1230

Indexed as: Tohidy v. Algonquin College

1This is an Application alleging discrimination 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 financial pressure and his fear that he will not be able to pursue his Application because he may be forced to move back to “his country”.

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, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence. In particular, the financial pressures and circumstances the applicant describes are not the type of situations which warrant giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters. The Request to Expedite is denied.

5The applicant has listed Robert Mckenzie, Patrick Denny, Lisa Mooney, Tristan Roscoe, Amel Dedic, Raphael Gera, Jo-Hsin Chen, Charles Carss, Matt Gifford, Helena Achia, and Natalie Rice as respondents to his Application but has not provided mailing addresses for these individuals. As such, the Tribunal cannot deliver the Application or this Interim Decision to them at this time. On July 27, 2009 the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings asking for an order that Algonquin College provide the addresses of these individuals. Although normally, a response to a Request for Order must be provided within fourteen days of the date it was delivered, in this case, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to extend this time until fourteen days after the date of this Interim Decision. The Tribunal will decide the Request for Order once the respondent Algonquin College has provided its Response to the Request for Order or the time for doing so has passed.