HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rozana Baber

Applicant

-and-

York Region District School Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: March 11, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 280

Indexed as: Baber v. York Region District School Board

1The applicant requests that the Tribunal expedite the hearing of this Application pursuant to Rule 21 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (the “Rules”). 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 urgent circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the Application and the harm that may result if the request is denied. Where the Tribunal decides to expedite a proceeding, it may do so by abridging time limits, scheduling early dates, or taking any other steps it deems appropriate. Where an Application is not expedited in accordance with Rule 21, the Tribunal’s policies and procedures nonetheless provide for the “fair, just and expeditious” resolution of all Applications before it.

Request to Expedite and Positions of the Parties

2The applicant filed an Application on February 19, 2009 pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging that the respondent discriminated against her on the basis of disability and sex in respect of employment and engaged in reprisals and harassed her contrary to the Code. Among other things, she alleges that the respondent has improperly suspended her from work by forcing her to take medical leave on the basis of its position that she is not medically fit to work. She asserts that the respondent is improperly refusing to accommodate her disability by allowing her to return to work.

3In support of her Request to Expedite, the applicant states she has been without pay since November 2008 and is unable to support her family financially as a result of the respondent’s actions.

4The respondent opposes the applicant’s Request to Expedite.

Decision

5Having considered applicant’s request, the Tribunal is not prepared to grant the Request to Expedite these proceedings. The applicant does not identify any circumstances which would undermine the Tribunal’s ability to conduct a fair and just hearing of the merits of the Application or to provide a fair and just result to the parties, if the matter were not expedited. This is the primary purpose of the expedited procedure contemplated by Rule 21. The financial harm which the applicant alleges she has suffered because of the respondent’s refusal to allow her to return to work is not an urgent circumstance which warrants dealing with the Application on an expedited basis. Almost every case where an applicant alleges her employment has been suspended or terminated contrary to the Code will involve financial hardship. Purely financial losses will rarely constitute urgent circumstances, which would prevent the Tribunal from fairly and justly dealing with the merits of the Application in accordance with its usual expeditious procedures within the meaning of Rule 21.2.

6The Request to Expedite is therefore not granted. I am not seized.