minicounsel

Morgan Mulvihill v. TNS Canadian Facts Inc., 2009 HRTO 578

May 5, 2009

Morgan Mulvihill v. TNS Canadian Facts Inc., 2009 HRTO 578

Case Summary

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination and requested that the matter be expedited due to the financial consequences of a potential decrease in compensation. The Tribunal reviewed the request without requiring a response from the respondents. Applying the high threshold for urgency, the Tribunal found that the alleged financial harm did not constitute an urgent circumstance warranting priority over other matters. The request to expedite was denied.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Morgan Mulvihill

Applicant

-and-

TNS Canadian Facts Inc., Michael LoPresti and Suzanne Lanz-White

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: May 5, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 578

Indexed as: Mulvihill v. TNS Canadian Facts

[1] This is an Application alleging discrimination on the basis of age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant has filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing the financial consequences of a decrease in his compensation should this Application remain unresolved by the end of 2009.

[2] The 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.

[3] 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.

[4] In accordance with Rules 5.2 and 21.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal does not require a Response to Request to Expedite from the respondents. Having reviewed the applicant’s materials, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence. In particular, the financial harm the applicant alleges he will suffer is not an urgent circumstance which warrants giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters. The Request to Expedite is denied.

Dated at Toronto, this 5^th day of May, 2009.

“Signed by”

Sherry Liang

Vice-chair