Basic v. Extreme Fitness Inc., 2009 HRTO 1460

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Zvonimir Basic

Applicant

-and-

Extreme Fitness Inc. and Fahad Hashim

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: September 11, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1460

Indexed as: Basic v. Extreme Fitness Inc.

1This is an Application alleging discrimination 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 the high level of anxiety that he will experience until he obtains closure on this matter.

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. In particular, a claim that anxiety will be experienced if the matter is not concluded quickly is not generally the type of situation which warrants giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters. Further the broad and unsupported assertion of harm to the applicant's health, which is all that has been made in this particular case, is an insufficient basis to justify expedition of the Application.

5The applicant's Request to expedite the proceedings is therefore dismissed.

6I am not seized of this matter.