Gerri Hynes v. Cumis Group Co., 2009 HRTO 724

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gerri Hynes

Applicant

-and-

Cumis Group Co.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: June 1, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 724

Indexed as: Hynes v. Cumis Life

1This is an Application filed on May 11, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), which alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

2A Request to Expedite Proceedings was filed with the Application briefly citing the applicant’s difficult financial circumstances and the financial harm to her that may ensue if her Application is not expedited.

3The respondents filed a Response to Request to Expedite Proceedings on May 21, 2009, which opposes the applicant’s Request. The respondents state that there is no urgency to the Application in that the applicant, whose employment was terminated on March 26, 2009 will continue to receive salary and benefits until June 18, 2009 as part of a negotiated settlement. She will also receive 6 months of outplacement counselling.

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.

5In 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 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 have financial concerns given that she is no longer employed with the respondent but she has not submitted facts that are more urgent than those in many other applications that the Tribunal receives.

7The applicant’s Request to Expedite is therefore denied.