Akhtar v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2009 HRTO 1274

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Uzma Akhtar Applicant

-and-

Law Society of Upper Canada, Daphne Simon, Diana Miles and Roman Woloszczuk Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: August 18, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1274 Indexed as: Akhtar v. Law Society of Upper Canada

1The applicant, Uzma Akhtar, alleges in her Application that she was discriminated against on the basis of race, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed and disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The allegation is that the organizational respondent, the Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”), failed to appropriately accommodate her in her efforts to obtain a license from LSUC to practice law in Ontario as a barrister and solicitor. The Application also names three LSUC staff involved in overseeing or administering various aspects of LSUC’s licensing process as personal respondents.

2The applicant filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings (the “Request”) with her Application indicating that she is seeking further accommodations from LSUC. It would appear she is requesting other accommodations when writing examinations as well as consideration given to an alternative method of having her examinations evaluated.

3The respondents have filed a Response opposing the applicant’s Request. The respondents state that the applicant has been a candidate in the licensing process since May 2006 but in the period March 2007 to March 2009 she wrote the necessary licensing examinations a total of 13 times and failed every time. The respondents state that they have accommodated the applicant in a number of ways including allowing her a private room to write exams, providing her with extended breaks during exams and giving her substantial extra time to write the exams. They state that she will be given a further opportunity to write her exams in November 2009 although this is past the three-year period in which she had to complete the licensing process (which began when she became a candidate in May 2006).

4The respondents note the applicant unsuccessfully appealed the treatment she has received under LSUC’s accommodation policy to LSUC’s Professional Development and Competence Committee and that she has now applied for judicial review of this decision to the Divisional Court, which is scheduled to hear arguments on September 21, 2009. The respondents submit that the Application should be deferred pending the outcome of the Divisional Court’s decision.

5The 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.

6The 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.

7Having 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 why the circumstances of her case are truly urgent. I do not find these circumstances warrant special consideration in terms of quick processing when compared to other applications before the Tribunal. For these reasons, the Request to Expedite Proceedings is denied.

8The respondents have raised in their Response the issue of whether the Application should be deferred in light of the applicant’s request for judicial review. The Tribunal directs the applicant to provide written submissions on whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion of the related judicial review proceedings. These submissions must be provided to the Tribunal and the respondents by September 1, 2009.

9I am not seized.