Singh v. University of Toronto, Professor Jill Matus and Professor Richard Powers, 2009 HRTO 1272

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Bobby Singh

Applicant

-and-

University of Toronto, Professor Jill Matus and Professor Richard Powers

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: August 18, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1272 Indexed as: Singh v. University of Toronto, Professor Jill Matus and Professor Richard Powers

1This is an Application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability under sections 1 and 2 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The allegation is that the University of Toronto has failed to consider the applicant’s medical disability during the admissions process for its Masters of Business Administration (MBA) program. The Application also names two persons involved in the admissions process, Professors Jill Matus and Richard Powers, as personal respondents.

2The applicant filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings (the Request) with his Application indicating that his interest in expediting his Application is in order to be considered for admission into the MBA program for the 2009-2010 academic year.

3The respondents filed a Response to the applicant’s Request on August 12, 2009, which opposes the applicant’s Request. The respondents state that the applicant has failed to describe the harm that would result if his Request was denied. The respondents submit that even if the applicant’s Request was granted a hearing could not take place with the Tribunal issuing its subsequent decision by the time the MBA program begins on August 31, 2009. The respondents further submit that it would be prejudicial to the respondents if the Tribunal was to schedule a hearing on such short notice as they would have little time to prepare.

4The 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.

5The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide for applications to be dealt with in an expedited manner in urgent circumstances. In 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.

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 find that the applicant has identified a harm that would befall him if his Request was not granted that I find compelling or reason to expedite his Application. I am also not satisfied that his expectation that he could be admitted into the 2009-2010 academic year is realistic given the timing of his Request or, more importantly, that this Request warrants special consideration in comparison to other Applications before the Tribunal which almost all have an interest in being resolved in a timely fashion. For these reasons the Request to Expedite Proceedings is denied.

7I am not seized.