Judith Zarubiak v. Brain Injury Services of Hamilton, Jan Narduzzi and Laurie Graham, 2009 HRTO 2033

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Judith Zarubiak

Applicant

-and-

Brain Injury Services of Hamilton, Jan Narduzzi and Laurie Graham

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: November 26, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2033

Indexed as: Zarubiak v. Brain Injury Services of Hamilton

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status and marital 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 on September 3, 2009. She has filed a Request to Expedite the Application, stating that the respondent organization is currently hiring for her former position and citing the risk that should they fill it, if she is successful in her Application, she will be unable to regain the position she held.

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 Tribunal has held that the factors the applicant describes, including the risk that an applicant's position may be filled by another person, does not constitute an indication of urgency as compared with other employment discrimination cases; see Russell v. Georgina (Town), 2009 HRTO 466. 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.