Valeeva-Semeryk v. GeniSys Management Solutions, 2009 HRTO 514

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Elza Valeeva-Semeryk

Applicant

-and-

GeniSys Management Solutions

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: April 28, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 514

Indexed as: Valeeva-Semeryk v. GeniSys Management Solutions

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request that the proceedings be expedited.

2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on April 14, 2009, which alleges that the respondent discriminated against her with respect to employment because of her sex. Specifically, she alleges that the respondent terminated her employment a few days before the end of her maternity/parental leave, and, as a consequence, she is no longer entitled to Employment Insurance (“EI”) benefits because she exhausted her benefits during her leave.

3The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings, which states that she needs money to support herself and her baby and to pay her bills while she is looking for a new job. She further states that the harm that would result if the Request is denied is that her baby will cry because he is hungry. The respondent filed a Response to Request to Expedite Proceedings on April 23, 2009, which expresses agreement with the applicant’s Request.

4The 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.

5Furthermore, in 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.

6In the case at hand, the respondent does not oppose the Request to Expedite Proceedings. 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: see Russell v. Georgina (Town), 2009 HRTO 466, at para. 3.

7In my view, the applicant has not submitted facts that are so urgent as to justify giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters. I appreciate that the termination of a person’s employment is the most serious consequence that can occur in an employment relationship, and the effect on that person and his or her family can be serious, particularly where that person’s entitlement to EI benefits has been exhausted. That said, the applicant has not submitted facts that are more urgent than those in many other applications that the Tribunal receives. Furthermore, the applicant indicates that she has a spouse, but does not specify whether or not he is receiving employment income, EI benefits, or other sources of income.

8The applicant’s Request to expedite the proceedings is therefore dismissed. I note that the applicant has agreed to attempt mediation to resolve her Application. If the respondent also agrees to mediation, the Tribunal will schedule a mediation on the earliest possible date which is mutually agreeable to the parties.

9I am not seized of this matter.