Michael Russell v. Town of Georgina and Mary Baxter, 2009 HRTO 466

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Russell

Applicant

-and-

Town of Georgina and Mary Baxter

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: April 21, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 466

Indexed as: Russell v. Georgina (Town)

1The applicant filed an Application on March 20, 2009, pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The Application alleges that the respondents discriminated against the applicant in employment on the ground of sex.

2The applicant asks that the Application be expedited pursuant to Rule 21 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. In support of his Request to Expedite, the applicant states that he is concerned that documents required for his case might be deleted from the personal respondent's e-mail or from the e-mail account used by him during his employment, to which he no longer has access. In addition, the applicant is concerned that a replacement might be hired for his former job, and that this could create difficulties with his requested remedy, reinstatement.

3The respondents do not oppose the Request to Expedite. However, this does not end the matter. The Tribunal must consider whether the circumstances in this case are truly so urgent as to justify giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other applications.

4In Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008-00096-I, 2008 HRTO 53, the Tribunal outlined the process of a proceeding before this Tribunal:

The Tribunal is committed to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of human rights applications, and its process is designed for timely resolution of all such disputes. A respondent must file a complete response within 35 days after a copy of the application was delivered to the respondent (Rule 8), and a reply may be filed within 14 days of when the response was sent to the applicant (Rule 9). With the agreement of the parties and the Tribunal, mediation will be scheduled shortly afterwards. If no mediation takes place or following an unsuccessful mediation, the Tribunal will send a confirmation of hearing to the parties, which triggers an obligation to disclose all arguably relevant documents within 21 days (Rule 16.1). A hearing will follow. The Tribunal expects most hearings to be completed within one year of an application being filed.

5The respondent's Response to the Application is due on or before May 11, 2009. Both applicant and respondent have indicated their willingness to engage in mediation.

6For 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.

7The applicant's concern about the e-mails can be addressed through a request for an Order During Proceedings under Rule 19 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, which can be filed at any time. In any event, the respondent now has notice of the applicant's concern, and destruction of relevant records at this point could give rise to a negative inference on the part of the Tribunal if this matter proceeds to a hearing.

8The applicant's concern about reinstatement might constitute a justification for expedition in some circumstances, but ordering reinstatement is certainly within the Tribunal's powers under s. 45.2 of the Code, even if an applicant's employer has replaced him or her. In the circumstances, I do not find that the facts here are so urgent as to support giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters.

9All time requirements under the Rules remain in effect, including the requirement for the respondent to deliver and file the Response to Application (Form 2) on or before May 11, 2009.

10I am not seized of this matter.