Brian Fernandes v. Meloche Monnex Financial Services Inc. and Stephanie Sorensen, 2009 HRTO 2047

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Brian Fernandes

Applicant

-and-

Meloche Monnex Financial Services Inc. and Stephanie Sorensen

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: November 27, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2047

Indexed as: Fernandes v. Meloche Monnex Financial Services

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin, sexual orientation and record of offences contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The applicant has filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing the “prevention of a promotion” and psychological harm as the reasons supporting the Request. The respondents have filed a response to the Request to Expedite and submit that the applicant has not met the high threshold for expedition required by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence.

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.

4Having reviewed the materials, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence.

5The applicant’s claim of psychological harm is a mere assertion that he is losing his “peace of mind” and “going insane”. Further the reliance on the “prevention of a promotion” is not the type of factor that generally constitutes a circumstance which is truly urgent, thus warranting giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters.

6The Request to Expedite is denied. All time requirements under the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure remain in effect, including the requirement for the respondents to deliver and file the Response to Application (Form 2) by December 15, 2009.

7In its Response to the Request to Expedite the corporate respondent indicates that it was incorrectly named in the Application and that its proper name is Meloche Monnex Financial Services Inc. The style of cause is amended to reflect the correct name of the corporate respondent.

8I am not seized.