Paul O’Connor v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Finance, 2009 HRTO 89

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Paul O’Connor

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Finance

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: January 27, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 89

Indexed as: O’Connor v. Ontario (Finance)

1This is an Application filed January 6, 2009 under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant filed a Request for Interim Remedy to return him to the respondent’s payroll. The applicant also requested that his Application be dealt with in an expedited manner, because he is having difficulty meeting his financial obligations.

3The Tribunal is committed to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of all transitional applications under section 53(3) and 53(5) and its transitional processes are designed for timely resolution of all applications.

4Although the Tribunal Rules Governing Transitional Applications under Sections 53(3) and 53(5) of the Code do not specifically provide a process to request a “faster” process or an “interim remedy”, the Tribunal has the discretion to shorten any time limit, Rule 4.3 (a), and take any other action that the Tribunal determines is appropriate, Rule 4.3 (m), to ensure the fair, just and highly expeditious resolution of a transitional application. The Tribunal will determine on a case-by-case basis whether it is necessary to abridge time limits or make interim orders in order to ensure a fair, just and expeditious resolution of an application.

5For 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 already highly expeditious process. The applicant has not established any circumstances that would necessitate an abridgement of the Tribunal’s usual time limits.

6Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure Governing Applications under Part IV of the Code sets out the Tribunal’s general approach to interim remedies. While these Rules are not directly applicable to transition applications, they do give an indication of the evidence and standard expected in a request for an interim remedy. In this case, the applicant has not filed any evidence, nor made any submissions on whether the Application has merit or whether the balance of harm or convenience favours granting the interim remedy requested.

7Therefore, the request to expedite proceedings and the request for an Interim Remedy is denied.