Rob Lubinsky v. Sport Alliance of Ontario and Carol Nickle, 2009 HRTO 1453

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rob Lubinsky

Applicant

-and-

Sport Alliance of Ontario and Carol Nickle

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: September 11, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1453

Indexed as: Lubinsky v. Sport Alliance of Ontario

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on September 8, 2009, pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges the respondent terminated his employment on August 24, 2009, contrary to the Code. The applicant has also filed a Request to Expedite the Application, stating that he wants the circumstances of his Application to be known to “the members” prior to an Annual General Meeting taking place on or about September 24, 2009.

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 Ebrahimi v. Durham District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1062, the Tribunal noted that another basis for expediting an application may be where a requested (and arguably appropriate) remedy will be moot, or unavailable, without expediting an application.

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 respondent. Having reviewed the applicant’s materials, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence.

6The respondents will be given notice of this application before September 24. It is up to the respondents to determine whether or when to share information about the Application with others in the organization. The Tribunal’s discretion to expedite its processes does not extend to ensuring that an organization’s membership is made aware of the Application.

7In the circumstances, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the Request to Expedite is necessary or appropriate. The Request to Expedite is dismissed.

8I am not seized of this matter.