Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Daniel Khan Applicant
-and-
Bell Distribution Inc. Respondent
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: November 23, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1971 Indexed as: Khan v. Bell Distribution
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on November 2, 2009, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment. The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings with the Application.
Notice of Intent to Dismiss
2On November 4, 2009, the Tribunal provided the applicant with a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, indicating that it appears that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because “the respondent appears to be a federal government department, agency or a federally regulated business or service.” The applicant was directed to provide written submissions in response.
3The applicant provided submissions, dated November 10, 2009, stating that he was in contact with both “the Federal and Provincial Human Rights offices” and he was advised by both that since his employment with the respondent was “as a Regional Manager with their Corporate Retail division that any claim against them would need to be filed with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal”. He submitted further that this was confirmed by an individual at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
4Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that the Tribunal may dismiss an application that is outside its jurisdiction. Rules 13.2 to 13.5 provide for a process under which the Tribunal may initiate a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis of jurisdiction, which occurs without the application being sent to the respondent. Under the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, an application will only be dismissed at this preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” that the matter falls under federal jurisdiction: Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.
5In my view, it is not plain and obvious that this matter falls under federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to deal with this Application and the Application will be served on the respondent with a copy of this Interim Decision.
6This is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of this Application.
Request to Expedite Proceedings
7In his Application, the applicant alleges that he experienced discrimination when his employment was terminated on December 22, 2008, and in the respondent’s failure to accept, inquire or investigate his claim of disability.
8In his Request to Expedite Proceedings, the applicant states that he has been trying to resolve this matter internally with the respondent since March 2009 and the respondent has continued to delay the process no matter how many specialists confirm his claim of disability. He submits that his continued recovery from his disability depends on the “concluding of this unfair ruling” on the respondent’s part. He also submits that his continued battle with the respondent continues to play havoc on his development, his ability to pursue his personal life, his professional life, his marriage and his work in regards to his condition.
9Rule 21.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules 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. 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.
10In 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 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. With respect to the harm that would result if this Request is denied, the applicant asserts that his continued recovery from his disability depends on the concluding of an unfair ruling on the respondent’s part and his continued battle with the respondent is playing havoc on his development and in other areas of his life. However, there is an insufficient basis in the material to support these broad assertions. Moreover, I also find that the time between the termination of his employment and the filing of this Application with a Request to Expedite, which appears to be more than ten months, weighs against the Request: see Dubbin v. Toronto-Hydro Electric Systems, 2009 HRTO 1394, at para. 10.
11The applicant’s Request to expedite the proceedings is therefore dismissed.
12I am not seized of this matter