Steven Michael v. McArthur Properties and Jadranko Malbasic, 2009 HRTO 683

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Steven Michael

Applicant

-and-

McArthur Properties and Jadranko Malbasic

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: May 26, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 683

Indexed as: Michael v. McArthur Properties

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on May 15, 2009 alleging discrimination on the basis of age and because of his association with someone identified by prohibited grounds, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The applicant and his common-law spouse, who has also filed an Application, were dismissed from their employment as building superintendents by the respondents on August 14, 2008. The applicant has filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing financial hardship and the difficulty in finding new employment for himself and his spouse. As well, the applicant describes the impact of the dismissal on his spouse's eligibility for maternity and parental Employment Insurance ("EI") benefits, and the ability to provide proper nutrition for his spouse and their child.

2The 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.

3In 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.

4In 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.

5The termination of a person's employment is the most serious consequence that can occur in an employment relationship and may affect the person's eligibility for EI benefits. The financial effects on that person and his or her family are often serious. However, the Tribunal has held that the types of factors cited by the applicant do not generally constitute indications of urgency as compared with other employment dismissal cases.

6Moreover, the applicant waited nine months after the conclusion of his employment before filing his Application. Except in the rarest of circumstances, a party who has delayed in filing his or her Application without explanation will not be given the priority for Tribunal resources of an expedited proceeding: Kwan v. Hospital for Sick Children, 2009 HRTO 621. The Request to Expedite is denied.

7The applicant has asked that the Tribunal hear his Application together with that of his spouse, Felicia Beals, which was filed at the same time and is based on the same facts. The Tribunal may make an order, under Rule 1.7(d) of its Rules of Procedure, that Applications be consolidated or heard together. The respondents are directed to provide their position on consolidating these two Applications when filing their Response (Form 2).

8I am not seized.