Colleen Falls v. The Corporation of the City of Cambridge and Bo Densmore, 2009 HRTO 904

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Colleen Falls

Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the City of Cambridge and Bo Densmore

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: June 23, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 904

Indexed as: Falls v. Cambridge (City)

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on June 9, 2009 alleging discrimination by her employer on the basis of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The applicant has filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing the physical and psychological harm she says she may experience when returning to work after her medical leave. She also describes financial hardship as a result of lost wages and pension earnings.

2The 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.

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.

4In accordance with Rules 5.2 and 21.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal does not require a Response to Request to Expedite from the respondents. Having reviewed the applicant’s materials, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence.

5The Tribunal has held that the types of factors cited by the applicant do not generally constitute indications of urgency as compared with other employment discrimination cases. Without questioning the sincerity of the applicant’s concerns, in my view, the harm the applicant alleges she will suffer is not an urgent circumstance which warrants giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters. The Request to Expedite is denied.

6I am not seized.