minicounsel

Shazia Raza v. Walmart Supercenter, Store 3135, et al., 2009 HRTO 1470

September 14, 2009

Shazia Raza v. Walmart Supercenter, Store 3135, et al., 2009 HRTO 1470

Case Summary

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of family status and requested to expedite the process due to financial hardship resulting from unemployment. The Tribunal denied the request, finding that financial pressures do not meet the high threshold of truly urgent circumstances required to prioritize the application over other matters.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shazia Raza

Applicant

-and-

Walmart Supercenter, Store 3135, Angie Contini, Richard Caravana, Pat Bye, Sonia Venture, Tony Pillegi and Mike Shah

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: September 14, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1470

Indexed as: Raza v. Walmart Supercenter

[1] The applicant filed an Application on September 1, 2009 alleging discrimination by her employer on the basis of family status, 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 been without any work since early July 2009 and is still awaiting a decision on her eligibility for Employment Insurance (EI) benefits.

[2] The 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.

[3] In 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.

[4] In 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 pressures and other circumstances cited by the applicant do 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.

[5] I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 14^th day of September, 2009.

“Signed by”

Sherry Liang

Vice-chair