Audrey Busbridge v. Gary Reed, 2009 HRTO 1656

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Audrey Busbridge

Applicant

-and-

Gary Reed

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: October 13, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1656

Indexed as: Busbridge v. Reed

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on October 2, 2009, alleging discrimination 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 states she was dismissed from her employment by the respondent on June 9, 2009. The applicant has filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing financial hardship, stress and difficulty in finding new employment. As well, the applicant alleges that wages owed to her are being withheld by her former employer.

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.

5The termination of a person’s employment is the most serious consequence that can occur in an employment relationship. The financial effects on that person and his or her family are often serious. However, the Tribunal has held that the types of factors cited by the applicant do not generally constitute indications of urgency as compared with other employment dismissal cases.

6Moreover, the applicant waited almost four months after the conclusion of her employment before filing her Application. Except in the rarest of circumstances, a party who has delayed in filing his or her Application without explanation will not be given the priority for Tribunal resources of an expedited proceeding: Kwan v. Hospital for Sick Children, 2009 HRTO 621. The Request to Expedite is denied.

7I am not seized.