Kranz v. Ottawa Police Service, 2009 HRTO 360

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BETWEEN:

Jason Kranz Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Police Service and Tracy Turpin Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: March 27, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 360 Indexed as: Kranz v. Ottawa Police Service

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"). The Application alleges that the applicant was subjected to discrimination and reprisal by the respondents in police services on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and creed. This Interim Decision deals with the applicant's Request to Expedite Proceedings.

Request to Expedite

2The applicant filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings, pursuant to Rule 21 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure for Applications under Part IV of the Code (the "Rules").

3The Application alleges that on November 6, 2007 the applicant was attacked by a number of police officers employed by the organizational respondent and that the personal respondent was involved in the post-incident investigation process. The applicant suggests that these events give rise to various legal concerns, including assault, battery, negligence, conspiracy, etc., for which he may have civil recourse. The applicant requests that his Application be expedited because he has only two years "to make a proper claim of injustice" and that "time is lapsing".

4The respondent did not respond to the Request to Expedite.

5Rule 21.1 provides that the Tribunal may deal with an application on an expedited basis in "circumstances which require an urgent resolution of the issues in dispute". In Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 53, the Tribunal held as follows, at paragraph 9:

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.

6The Request to Expedite is denied. The applicant has not provided any explanation as to why the events and potential civil recourse create an urgency that warrants expediting these proceedings or affects the fair and just resolution of the merits of this Application. The applicant did not identify any specific circumstances that are so particularly urgent as to distinguish his Application from other cases before the Tribunal.

7I am not seized of this matter.