HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lance Tyszka

Applicant

-and-

Sleeman Breweries Ltd. and Great-West Life Assurance Company

Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Lance Tyszka

Applicant

-and-

Sleeman Breweries Ltd., Claire Tong and Robert Maarse

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: August 20, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1290

Indexed as: Tyszka v. Sleeman Breweries Ltd.

1These matters are an Application alleging breach of settlement, filed on May 25, 2009, and a further Application filed on July 17, 2009, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal under the Code. The Tribunal has not yet issued Notice of the July 17 Application.

REQUEST TO EXPEDITE

2The applicant filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings in the July 17 Application, citing financial pressure and resulting stress, which the applicant states impacts his “medical condition(s), disabilities and [his] ability to function on a daily basis.”

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.

5In 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. While the applicant has identified that financial pressures have affected a medical condition or conditions, the basis of his Request is principally the financial harm he says has resulted from the alleged breach of the Code. Further, the broad and unsupported assertion of harm to the applicant’s health is an insufficient basis to justify expedition of the Application.

6The Request to Expedite is denied. However, in the circumstances, the Tribunal directs that the July 17 Application be set down for hearing together with the May 25 Application and will send a Confirmation of Hearing accordingly. The Tribunal will consider any written requests to vary the timelines for disclosure of documents and witnesses in relation to the July 17 Application.

REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM REMEDY

7On July 17, the applicant filed a Request for Interim Remedy, relating to the May 25 Application. He also filed a Form 23 indicating that he had served the Request on “John Sleeman of Sleeman Breweries Ltd.” It should be noted that John Sleeman is not the contact person for any of the respondents on the May 25 Application and it is not apparent to me that the respondents have received this Request, as none of them has responded to it. The Tribunal therefore will send a copy of the Request to the respondents along with a copy of this Interim Decision. Given my determination not to grant the Request, no response is necessary.

8In the Request for Interim Remedy, the applicant asks for “an order returning me to work with ‘an appropriate accommodation’ as per my FAFs provided to my employer.” Although the applicant’s Request was made on the required Form 16, it was not accompanied by one or more declarations signed by person with direct first-hand knowledge detailing all the facts upon which the applicant wished to rely, as required by the Tribunal’s Rules (Rule 23.3(b)). The Tribunal’s decision in Chopra v. Kratiuk, 2009 HRTO 109, explains why compliance with the Tribunal’s rules generally and specifically in relation to requests for interim remedies is important to a fair, just and expeditious process:

10The Tribunal’s Rules and processes are designed to ensure the fair, just and expeditious determination of the merits of matters before it. They are not meant to impose unduly technical barriers to the determination of the issues. The Tribunal has the power to accept material from parties even when they fail to comply with the Rules.

11However, the technical requirements of the Rules should not be lightly ignored. Strict compliance with the Rules may be necessary to the fair, just and expeditious determination of the issues before the Tribunal. In a request for interim remedies, an applicant is asking the Tribunal to take an extraordinary step. He or she is asking the Tribunal to order a respondent to take or not take certain actions, before the merits of the Application has been decided. Even before any violation of the Code has been proven, the applicant wishes the Tribunal to intervene and provide remedies.

12There will be cases where such an extraordinary step is justified. However, it should not be taken without the proper evidentiary and legal foundation, part of which is reflected in the materials an applicant must file under Rule 23.

9In this case the applicant has not provided the signed declarations necessary to establish an appropriate evidentiary foundation for his Request. Apart from his failure to comply with the Rules, the request for reinstatement with unspecified “appropriate accommodations” is an extraordinary measure which, from the materials before me, I do not find justified. The Request is accordingly denied.

RESPONDENTS’ REQUEST FOR ORDER

10The Tribunal acknowledges the respondents’ outstanding Request for an Order During Proceedings in the May 25 Application, to which the applicant has responded. The Tribunal will defer addressing the Request pending further steps to be taken in the July 17 Application.

11Notice of the July 17 Application will be sent to the respondents along with this Interim Decision. After the date for filing of Responses, the Tribunal may issue a further Interim Decision or a Case Assessment Direction addressing the Request or the hearing.

12I am not seized of this matter.