Joanne Blanchette v. The Corporation of the Town of Oakville, Richard Boyes and Brian Durdin, 2009 HRTO 546

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Joanne Blanchette

Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the Town of Oakville, Richard Boyes and Brian Durdin

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: April 30, 2008

Citation: 2009 HRTO 546

Indexed as: Blanchette v. Oakville (Town)

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 8, 2009, which alleges that the respondents discriminated against her with respect to employment because of her sex and family status. Specifically, she alleges that she requested that the respondents provide her with modified duties in a 24 hour shift schedule in order to accommodate her pregnancy and childcare related needs, but they refused to do so. Instead, the respondents provided her with two options: (1) she could continue active firefighting on the 24 hour shift schedule, or (2) she could be accommodated on modified duties on straight days (Monday to Friday from 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM).

3The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings, which states that she is five months pregnant and needs a resolution for the remainder of her pregnancy. She further states that the harm that would result if the Request is denied is that she could end up at her due date with no resolution.

4The respondents filed a Response to Request to Expedite Proceedings on April 22, 2009, which opposes the applicant’s Request. The respondents state that there is no urgency to the Application because the collective agreement between the employer and the Oakville Firefighters Association provides that requests for modified duties in excess of 28 days can only be accommodated on a straight days basis, and it is therefore only willing to accommodate the applicant’s pregnancy-related needs on that basis.

5The 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.

6Furthermore, 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.

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 applicant may not obtain the accommodation that she seeks prior to her due date, but she has not submitted facts that are more urgent that those in many other applications that the Tribunal receives.

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.