HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Stephen Dubbin
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Hydro-Electrical Systems Limited
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Sherry Liang
Indexed as: Dubbin v. Toronto-Hydro Electric Systems
1This is an Application filed on April 21, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), accompanied by a Request to Expedite Proceedings. The Application names Toronto-Hydro Electric Systems (“Toronto Hydron”) and nine individuals as respondents. For the reasons set out below the individual respondents have not been included in the style of cause at this time.
2Because the Application was not complete and the applicant was required to provide additional information, it was not sent to the respondents until August 12, 2009. Notice of the Application was also sent to the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local One (“CUPE”), a union named as the applicant’s representative at the workplace.
3The Tribunal directed the respondents to respond to the Request to Expedite by August 19 and, pending further direction from the Tribunal, to file a Response by September 16. The Tribunal has received Responses to the Request to Expedite from Toronto Hydro and from CUPE.
REQUEST TO EXPEDITE
4The Application arises out of the termination of the applicant’s employment on November 18, 2008, for misconduct. CUPE filed a grievance disputing the applicant’s discharge. The grievance proceeded through the three steps of the grievance procedure, and has not been referred to arbitration.
5Although the termination letter provides details of misconduct unrelated to drug use, the Application alleges that the applicant was discharged, among other things, because of a disability, which is said to be drug addiction. The Application alleges that the applicant was marginalized and degraded in the workplace for approximately 20 years. He alleges that he was the victim of discriminatory treatment over those 20 years. He alleges that the poisoned work environment led to stress and drug use. The applicant also states that other employees of the corporate respondent have engaged in similar misconduct, without the consequence of discharge.
6The applicant also states that since his discharge, he has opened a roofing company. He indicates that he is very busy with his new endeavour and role, including the mentoring of employees. He states that he is very happy now, working 12-14 hour days with his business.
7In support of his Request to Expedite, the applicant states that he is in dire financial circumstances. He refers to medication required for his wife, and that he is worried about losing his house, his wife and his health over the stress. In answer to Question #3 on Form 14 (Request to Expedite Proceedings), in which he is asked to describe the harm that would result if the Request is denied, he writes simply, “illness, loss of our house, death”.
8Toronto Hydro and CUPE oppose the Request to Expedite. Toronto Hydro asserts that the applicant has failed to act promptly in bringing the Application. Further, it states that the Application is lengthy, complex and names a large number of individual respondents. It also asserts that the subject matter of the Application has been fully and finally addressed through the grievance procedure. CUPE opposes the Request on the basis that the applicant has failed to raise any urgent circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits and that the applicant’s personal financial circumstances are without bearing on the merits of his Application.
9For 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: Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 53. Circumstances which might undermine a fair adjudication of the merits may be one reason why the Tribunal may expedite an application. Also, where a requested (and arguably appropriate) remedy will be moot, or unavailable, without expediting an Application, the Tribunal may exercise its power to expedite: see Ebrahimi v. Durham District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1062.
10I am not satisfied that the material before me supports the Request to Expedite. The applicant makes sweeping assertions about the consequences of refusing the Request, for which there is an insufficient basis in the material. The time between his termination from employment and the filing of the Application with a Request to Expedite also weighs against the Request. An expedited process would result in the abridgement of timelines for responding, and I agree with Toronto Hydro’s submission that the issues are complex. Finally, without minimizing the financial stresses facing the applicant (and I note that he has been engaged in some level of self-employment), the financial harm he describes does not by itself warrant giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters.
11The Request to Expedite is accordingly denied.
THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS
12The Tribunal wishes to raise an issue about whether this Application should proceed against the nine individual respondents. The applicant has provided a lengthy narrative about his employment with Toronto Hydro. Some of the individual respondents are mentioned in the narrative; others are not. In general, it is not clear what the applicant alleges these individual respondents did or did not do, in violation of the Code.
13The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into all claims of unfair treatment. Its jurisdiction is based on the provisions of the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific social relationships, such as employment, on the basis of enumerated grounds. The Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate all employment relationships or dismissals, but hears only applications that allege violations of the Code.
14The Tribunal requires the applicant to state how he believes each of the individual respondents have violated the Code. The applicant must state how his allegations against the individual respondents raise matters within the Tribunal’s power to decide. The Tribunal will consider his submissions before considering whether to dismiss the Application against some or all of the individual respondents without proceeding further, or require Responses from them. The applicant may wish to review the provisions of the Human Rights Code as well as the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Guides to its processes, all available on the Tribunal’s website at www.hrto.ca, before responding to this direction.
15None of the respondents are required to file a Response, pending further direction from the Tribunal.
16The applicant’s submissions must be received by the Tribunal, and delivered to the other parties, by October 2, 2009.
17I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of September, 2009.
“Signed By”
Sherry Liang
Vice-chair