John Gilinsky v. Peel District School Board, 2009 HRTO 2053

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

John Gilinsky

Applicant

-and-

Peel District School Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: November 30, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2053

Indexed as: Gilinsky v. Peel District School Board

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of a number of grounds 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 has filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing financial hardship which could arise from loss of "sick days" and full pay and benefits in December 2009.

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 he will suffer is not an urgent circumstance which warrants giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters.

6Moreover, it would appear that the applicant waited approximately six months after the last alleged incident of discrimination, which he indicates was "spring 2009" before filing his Application. Except in the rarest of circumstances, a party who has delayed in filing his or her Application without explanation will not be given the priority for Tribunal resources of an expedited proceeding: Kwan v. Hospital for Sick Children, 2009 HRTO 621, 2009 HRTO 621. The Request to Expedite is denied.

7The applicant has indicated that there is an ongoing union grievance, dated April 8, 2009, related to matters raised in the Application. Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal's Rules states that the Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party.

8The Tribunal requests written submissions from the parties regarding whether it ought to defer this Application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding. Within ten days of this Interim Decision, the parties may provide written submissions to each other and the Tribunal. These submissions should address the current status of the grievance proceeding.

9I am not seized.