Strange v. Surex Community Services, 2009 HRTO 634

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nancy Strange

Applicant

-and-

Surex Community Services, Colin Hamilton, Wanda Lougheed and Lilly Smith

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: May 13, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 634 Indexed as: Strange v. Surex Community Services

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 employment on the basis of family status and disability. At the same time, she also filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings (Form 14). This Interim Decision addresses the Request to Expedite.

2The 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). Where the Tribunal decides to expedite a proceeding, it may do so by abridging time limits, scheduling early dates, or taking any other steps it deems appropriate. An applicant requesting that his or her matter be expedited must identify urgent circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the application and the harm that may result if the request is denied (Rule 21.2).

3It would appear from her Application that the applicant alleges that the discriminatory behaviour commenced in September 2008 when her direct supervisor, one of the named respondents, accused the applicant of having a poor attitude, which the supervisor partly attributed to the applicant's status as a single parent with ongoing support issues. The applicant alleges that matters escalated from that point, resulting in her acquiring a disability. She alleges that when she requested accommodation of her family status and disability, the respondents made matters worse.

4In her Request, the applicant states that the urgent circumstances she faces are that her employer is "pressuring" her to take a paid leave of absence "to get better" and demanding frequent reports from her doctor concerning her progress. In addition, she alleges that she is being required to transfer to another location. These activities on the part of her employer, she submits, are making her worse and are interfering with the effectiveness of her treatment.

5The respondents object to the matter being expedited, in part because they submit that their rights may be compromised if the shortened deadlines do not allow them to gather the evidence they need, or allow one or more of the individual respondents to seek independent legal advice. In addition, the respondents argue:

the Applicant's allegations with respect to harm if her hearing is not expedited is predicated upon erroneous facts, is speculative and wholly fails to plead any facts that would distinguish her case from any other case before the Tribunal.

6Having reviewed the materials filed by the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has failed to establish that the circumstances in her matter require the resolution of her dispute in a particularly rapid manner as compared with the time required to complete the Tribunal's regular process. The applicant has not identified truly urgent circumstances that might prevent the "fair and just resolution" of her Application on the merits if the proceedings are not expedited. Many of the concerns raised in this Application are similar to those raised by other applications in which the applicant alleges ongoing discrimination in a continued employment relationship.

7Accordingly, the applicant's Request to Expedite is denied.

8I am not seized of this matter.