Amanda Melinko v. The Barbers Chair Limited and Dominic Polito, 2009 HRTO 1336

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Amanda Melinko

Applicant

-and-

The Barbers Chair Limited and Dominic Polito

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: August 27, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1336

Indexed as: Melinko v. The Barbers Chair

1This is an Application alleging that the applicant was discriminatorily dismissed from her employment in July 2009, 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 hardship as she has no means of support for herself and her young child.

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. The Tribunal has held that the financial hardship cited by the applicant does not generally constitute an indication of urgency as compared with other employment discrimination cases. Without questioning the sincerity of the applicant’s concerns, in my view, the harm the applicant alleges she will suffer is not an urgent circumstance which warrants giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters. The Request to Expedite is denied.

5I am not seized.