HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jan Rajca
Applicant
-and-
Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Indexed as: Rajca v. Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario
1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal pursuant to s.34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”) on December 15, 2008 alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities on the basis of record of offences. He also submitted a completed Form 1-C. Form 1-C requires an applicant to answer questions specific to applications in which discrimination in goods, services and facilities is alleged. He does not allege that he was discriminated against in employment on the basis of record of offences.
2The applicant alleges that on October 2, 2008 the respondent obtained a Court Order from the Superior Court of Justice (“the Court”). The Court Order declared that the applicant breached the Professional Engineers Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P-28, as amended, in holding himself out as engaging in the business of providing services that are within the practice of professional engineering and using the title “engineer” without holding a license or certification of authorization issued by the respondent. The Court ordered the applicant to refrain from engaging in the practice of professional engineering, or holding himself out as such, and from using the title “engineer”, “professional engineer” and other similar titles unless and until he obtains a license from the respondent. In his Application, the applicant alleges that the respondent’s conduct, through the Court Order, unfairly restricted his ability to seek and obtain employment, violated his legal right to use the word “engineer” as a title, disciplined him, and violated his rights to freedom of association.
Request to Expedite Proceedings
3The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings (Form 14), pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules of Procedure governing Applications under Part IV of the Code (the “Rules”). In support of his Request to Expedite, the applicant states that because of the Court Order, he cannot look for an engineering job in Ontario or place his professional resume on a job search website for fear of violating the Court Order, which has resulted in negative financial consequences for him. He advises that he received a letter from the respondent’s counsel advising him to comply with the terms of the Court Order or risk being held in contempt of court.
4The respondent filed a Response to the Request to Expedite opposing the Request. The respondent submitted that the applicant had not identified any urgent circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the Application or any compelling reasons to expedite the Application. The respondent submitted that there was nothing in the Court Order “that would prevent the applicant from posting a resume that would be in compliance with the court order, on a job search web site and continue his search for employment thereby mitigating any alleged financial harm”.
5Rule 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 and Form 14 require that a Request to Expedite Proceedings describe 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. Further, in Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 53, at paragraph 9, the Tribunal held as follows:
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.
6Having reviewed the materials filed, and having regard to the Tribunal’s Rules and the decision in Weerawardane, supra, the Request to Expedite is denied. The applicant has not provided any explanation as to why the Court Order creates circumstances that are truly urgent to warrant expedited proceedings. There is nothing in the substance of the Application that suggests particular urgency as compared with other human rights applications.
Record of Offences
7The Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate disputes between individuals and associations, but hears applications that allege violations of the Code. Under the Code, allegations of discrimination on the basis of “record of offences” only apply in employment situations (see s.5(1)) and cannot be claimed with respect to services, goods and facilities (see s.1). Further, s.10(1) defines record of offences as a conviction for:
(a)an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked; or
(b)an offence in respect of any provincial enactment.
8The applicant has not alleged discrimination in employment. The applicant has not alleged that he had a “conviction” required under s.10(1) to meet the definition of “record of offences”. The applicant has identified no other alleged ground of discrimination or basis upon which he says the Code was violated.
9The Tribunal requests written submissions from the applicant to address the issue of its jurisdiction to hear the Application. The applicant should explain how his Application raises matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. The respondent is not required to file any submissions on this point or in response to the merits of the Application unless directed to do so by the Tribunal.
10The applicant’s submissions should be delivered to the respondent and filed with the Tribunal by February 13, 2009. Following receipt of the submissions, or if the applicant does not provide submissions by the date set, the Tribunal may consider whether the Application should be dismissed under Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules, which permits it to dismiss all or part of an application that is outside its jurisdiction.
11The applicant may wish to consult the Applicant’s Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website or from the Registrar’s office. Pages 2 – 3 of the Guide set out sources of assistance that may be available to him.
12I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of January 2009.
“Signed by”________________________
Alison Renton
Vice-chair