Deanna Gardner v. Christian Horizons, 2009 HRTO 1970

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Deanna Gardner

Applicant

-and-

Christian Horizons

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte

Date: November 23, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1970

Indexed as: Gardner v. Christian Horizons

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request that the proceedings be expedited.

2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on October 16, 2009, which alleges that the respondent discriminated against her on the basis of disability and age in employment.

3The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings (“Request”), which states that she is subject to ongoing pressure to comply with policies and requests regarding the provision of medical information to her employer, contrary to the Code. In terms of the harm that would result if her Request is denied, she alleges that she is suffering from undue stress in her day-to-day living and in going to work as a result of the employer's ongoing requests for further information about her medical condition following surgery and a work-related injury. She alleges that other employees are also subject to similar pressure, and that the respondent recently revised its policies on the subject of the provision of medical information by employees in such a way as to contravene the Code.

4The respondent filed a Response to Request to Expedite Proceedings in which it suggested that the basis of the applicant’s Request was solely stress. The respondent submitted that the Tribunal has in the past denied a requests to expedite where such requests have been based on the stress that applicants are feeling as a result of ongoing discrimination in employment, or a fear that they may lose their jobs; the respondent cites in that regard Syska v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2009 HRTO 1252 and Souliere v. Howard Johnson/Sugarland Lodging, 2009 HRTO 1598.

5The respondent also argues that the applicant has not raised any urgent circumstances as required by Rule 21(a) of the Tribunal's Rules, and has not described any harm that would result if her request was denied as required by Rule 21(b) of the Tribunal's Rules.

6Finally, the respondent points to the applicant’s statement in Form 1-A which accompanied the Application which indicates that she began completing her Application in July 2009 and worked on it “whenever [she] had time to devote to the details….”. The respondent points out that the Application and the Request were not filed with the Tribunal until October 16, 2009. The respondent relies on Kwan v. Hospital for Sick Children, 2009 HRTO 621, for the proposition that a party who has delayed in filing her application without explanation will not be given priority for Tribunal resources, except in the rarest of cases.

7The Tribunal’s Rules 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.

8In 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.

9Having reviewed the materials, I cannot conclude that this Request meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence. In my view, the applicant has not submitted facts that are so urgent as to justify giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters. The applicant continues to be employed by the respondent and appears to be no longer working on modified duties. The issues pertaining to the respondent’s new policies and their compliance with the provisions of the Code can be dealt with at a hearing in the ordinary course if required. I find that the applicant has not identified any significant harm that would result to her if the Request is denied.

10The applicant’s Request to expedite the proceedings is therefore dismissed. The Tribunal will schedule a mediation on the earliest possible date which is mutually agreeable to the parties after a Response (Form 2) is filed.

11I am not seized of this matter.