Mukesh Chopra v. Beata Kratiuk, 2009 HRTO 857

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mukesh Chopra

Applicant

-and-

Beata Kratiuk

Respondent

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: June 15, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 857

Indexed as: Chopra v. Kratiuk

1This is an Application filed on November 21, 2008, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the respondent's Request to Expedite Proceedings in this matter.

2The applicant filed a Request to Expedite on May 14, 2009, citing the impact on his livelihood of alleged reprisals from the respondent. The applicant is the subject of ongoing disciplinary proceedings at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO), which he claims were initiated by the respondent as a reprisal for attempting to enforce his rights under the Code.

3The 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.

4In Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 53, 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.

5Having reviewed the applicant's materials, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal's jurisprudence. In particular, the harm the applicant alleges he will suffer is not a circumstance which warrants giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters. The Request to Expedite is denied.

6In the Tribunal's previous Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 283, the parties were reminded of Rule 1.12 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure which requires that all written communications to the Tribunal must also be delivered to all other parties. This requirement includes all attachments to written communications, as well as all email communications. The applicant continues to send material to the Tribunal without delivering a copy to the respondent. The applicant is advised that from today, none of his correspondence to the Tribunal will be considered unless it is accompanied by confirmation that it has been delivered to the respondent.

7Furthermore, any request for an order or directions from the Tribunal must be made in the proper Form 10, Request for an Order during Proceedings.