Mickle v. ArvinMeritor Canada, 2009 HRTO 777

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Laurie Mickle

Applicant

-and-

ArvinMeritor Canada, Mike Fife, Mike Slater, Kenneth Breault, CAW-TCA Canada (Canadian Auto Workers Union of Canada), Jerry Diaz, Richard Lafferty, Sean O’Donnell, Michael Byrne, Steven Travis, Curtiss Ladd, Chris Mason, and Terry Scratch

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: June 5, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 777

Indexed as: Mickle v. ArvinMeritor Canada

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on May 13, 2009 alleging discrimination on the basis of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s Request to Expedite Proceedings.

REQUEST TO EXPEDITE

2The applicant filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings, pursuant to Rule 21 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Applications under Part IV of the Code (the “Rules”). Rule 21.1 provides that the Tribunal may 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 the 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.

4The applicant asks to have her Application expedited because the respondent employer is in the process of closing operations at the plant where she worked and is moving out of the country, as well as fact the that she is experiencing financial hardship as a result of the alleged discrimination. The applicant is concerned that given these circumstances there is a possibility that a resolution will not be achieved.

5All respondents object to the Request to Expedite. The respondent employer acknowledges that while it is ceasing operations at the Tilbury, Ontario plant, it “subsists as an operating entity in Ontario and remains ready, willing and able to meet its obligations to all of its employees and former employees.” The respondent employer further submits that any alleged financial hardship is ameliorated by the applicant’s recent receipt of a significant severance payment in addition to on-going payment of workplace injury benefits. The respondent union submits that, notwithstanding the workplace closure, it remains part of the community and willing to respond to the Application. The respondent union asserts that compensation sought by the applicant is quantifiable and does not present any special harm. The respondent union further highlights that there is no risk of loss or disposal of any evidence.

6The Request to Expedite is denied. The applicant did not identify circumstances that are so particularly urgent as to distinguish this Application from other cases before the Tribunal. Although the respondent employer is closing a facility in Ontario, it subsists as an operating entity in the jurisdiction and has expressed full intention to participate in the Tribunal process. While recognizing that the financial effects of an employment termination are often serious the Tribunal has, however, held that the financial hardship does not generally constitute an indication of urgency as compared with other employment dismissal cases: see Beals v. McArthur Properties, 2009 HRTO 684.

7The parties have indicated their willingness to participate in a mediation. Accordingly, the Registrar will schedule a mediation.

8I am not seized of this matter.