Macdonald v. Toronto District School Board, 2009 HRTO 78

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Bruce Macdonald

Applicant

-and-

Toronto District School Board, Gerry Connelly, Penny Mustin, Jean Shaw, Ian Allison, Andrea Alimi and Peter Chang

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: January 22, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 78

Indexed as: Macdonald v. Toronto District School Board

1The applicant requests that the Tribunal expedite the hearing of this Application pursuant to Rule 21 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (the “Rules”). 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 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. 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.

REQUEST TO EXPEDITE AND POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

2The applicant, an elementary school teacher with the respondent, the Toronto District School Board (“TDSB”), filed an Application pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of disability and engaged in reprisals in respect of employment during the period from 2004 through 2008. Among other things, the applicant asserts that he experienced discrimination in scheduling, discipline, comments, and in being denied necessary accommodations in the workplace.

3In support of his Request to Expedite, the Applicant cites his concern that when he returns to work with the TDSB in January 2009 following a sick leave, the TDSB may discipline him, either by suspending him or transferring him to another school. He is concerned about the impact a transfer could have on his reputation as a teacher and the potential injury to his dignity and feelings. He also expresses the hope that expediting these proceedings would motivate the institutional respondent to pursue alternatives to discipline and transfer. The applicant asserts that his health is affected by continuing discrimination, because he and his health care professionals must spend time focusing on the actions of the respondents instead of on the applicant himself.

4The institutional respondent, the TDSB, and a number of the individual respondents filed a Response to the Request to Expedite. They all oppose the request. They submit that the applicant’s claims of possible harm are based purely on speculation about potential discipline and transfer. The respondents also assert that given the complexity of the Application, the number of personal respondents, and the breadth of the allegations, expediting the proceedings would substantially impair the ability of the respondents to make full answer and defence to the allegations.

DECISION

5Having considered this matter, the Tribunal is not prepared to grant the applicant’s Request to Expedite the proceedings in this case. While the applicant has identified certain steps which he fears the TDSB may take upon his return to work, whether this will occur and the potential impact on the applicant’s reputation are speculative in nature. Generally speaking, concerns of a purely speculative nature will rarely constitute the sort of truly urgent circumstances which will warrant dealing with an application on an expedited basis. Moreover, even if the applicant is disciplined or transferred by the respondent upon his return to work, this would not prevent the Tribunal from “fairly and justly dealing with the merits of the Application” in accordance with its usual expeditious procedures. As for the other concerns raised, almost every case where ongoing discrimination is asserted will involve potential injury to dignity and feelings. Also, it would not be appropriate to expedite proceedings expressly for the purpose of putting pressure on one party to pursue a given future course of action over another, as the applicant seems to suggest.

6I am unable to conclude that the circumstances in this case are so particularly urgent as to distinguish this Application from other cases before the Tribunal, such that it ought to be dealt with on an expedited basis. I am not seized of this matter.