Basic v. Wynn Family Properties, 2009 HRTO 439

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Zvonmir Basic

Applicant

-and-

Wynn Family Properties

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: April 15, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 439

Indexed as: Basic v. Wynn Family Properties

Background

1The applicant filed an Application under Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability.

2The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings (Form 14), a Request for an Interim Remedy (Form 16) and a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10).

3In the Form 16 and Form 10, the applicant sought an interim order that a wheelchair ramp be installed at the building in which he lived. He subsequently withdrew this request as a ramp was installed by the respondent.

4This Interim Decision addresses the request to expedite which is still outstanding. The respondent has sent a letter confirming that a ramp was installed but has not filed a Response to Request to Expedite Proceedings (Form 15) and the deadline for doing so has now passed.

5The expedited hearing process is available where the circumstances of an application “require an urgent resolution of the issues in dispute.” [see Rule 21.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure]. Thus, when requesting an expedited proceeding, “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.” [see Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 53]

6The applicant’s request for an expedited proceeding is based on the fact that at the time he filed his request there was no wheelchair accessible ramp at the building in which he resided. The ramp has subsequently been installed.

7Having reviewed the materials filed by the applicant and the letter from the respondent confirming that a ramp has been installed at the premises in question, there is no basis for concluding that the circumstances in this matter are urgent, requiring the resolution of this dispute in a particularly rapid manner as compared with the time required to complete the Tribunal’s regular process. Accordingly, the applicant’s Request to Expedite is denied.

8I am not seized of this matter.