Rachel Döll v. Group 4 Securicor (G4S), 2009 HRTO 2034

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rachel Döll

Applicant

-and-

Group 4 Securicor (G4S)

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: November 26, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2034

Indexed as: Döll v. Group 4 Securicor

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on October 30, 2009 alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal or threat of reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The applicant alleges a discriminatory layoff and has filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing financial hardship which could lead to the loss of her apartment and further indebtedness.

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 respondent. 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 types of factors cited by the applicant do not generally constitute indications of urgency as compared with other employment discrimination cases. In particular, the financial harm the applicant alleges she will suffer is not an urgent circumstance which warrants giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters.

6The Request to Expedite is denied.

7I am not seized.