Pamela Silverberg v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation 757, 2009 HRTO 910

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Pamela Silverberg

Applicant

-and-

Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation 757

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: June 25, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 910

Indexed as: Silverberg v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation 757

1This Interim Decision addresses a request by the applicant to expedite the hearing of this matter pursuant to Rule 21 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (the “Rules”).

2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”) on March 31, 2009. She alleges she was discriminated against on the basis of disability because the respondent failed to appropriately address the mould within the applicant’s condominium unit, thereby failing to accommodate her environmental illness and chemical sensitivity.

3On June 2, 2009, the applicant filed a Request to Expedite the Hearing (“Request”). The respondent responded on June 16, 2009, and objected to the Request.

4A mediation has been scheduled on July 21, 2009.

Background

5In the Application, the applicant indicates that she detected the presence of mould in her condominium in January of 2007 and that, at some point soon afterwards, she vacated the condominium unit.

6She has requested that the matter be expedited because of the physical and financial pressures she is suffering as a result of not being able to reside in her unit. She says she requires a mould-free place to live and has run out of funds to pay for alternate accommodation. She also says she requires urgent medical care in the United States, which she says she cannot afford because she has exhausted her funds on alternative accommodations.

7In support of the Request, the applicant filed a pathology report which indicates:

a) Patients with the applicant’s condition should remove themselves from contaminated environments; and

b) At this stage for the applicant, the prognosis is poor, but with therapy, the prognosis is guarded to good.

8The applicant also filed an email from the author of the pathology report. While it is somewhat unclear, the comments appear to refer to the applicant. It states:

I want to tell you how sick you are. You are having brain, heart and kidney damage right now to a severe degree due to arterial blockage.

9The respondent questions the qualifications of the author of the pathology report as well as the methodology he used. The respondent points out that the alleged harm occurred in 2007 and that the Application was not filed until March 31, 2009. It states that the 22 months the applicant took to file the Application militates against granting the Request. Finally, the respondent states that an expedited hearing would prejudice the parties’ ability to provide and respond to expert evidence.

Decision

10A Request to Expedite Proceedings must 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. In Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 53, at paragraph 9, the Tribunal stated:

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.

11The Tribunal’s Rule 21.2 provides as follows:

A Request to Expedite an Application under Rule 21.1 must describe:

a) any urgent circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the application;

b) the harm that would result if the request is denied; and

c) whether the other parties consent to the request.

12Where the Tribunal decides to expedite a proceeding, it may do so by abridging time limits, setting out a timetable for the exchange of expert evidence, scheduling early dates, and taking any other steps it deems appropriate. The Tribunal would ensure a fair process and would address parties’ concerns regarding early timelines for expert evidence.

13The financial harm which the applicant alleges she has suffered because of the alleged discrimination is not an urgent circumstance which warrants dealing with the Application on an expedited basis. Many cases where an applicant alleges discrimination will involve financial hardship. Purely financial losses will rarely constitute urgent circumstances, which would prevent the Tribunal from fairly and justly dealing with the merits of the Application in accordance with its usual expeditious procedures within the meaning of Rule 21.2.

14In this case, the applicant alleges that the financial harm she has suffered has prevented her from obtaining medical treatment.

15The Request to Expedite is denied. I cannot conclude that this Request meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence to give this Application precedence over other matters. While the applicant has identified an illness and a need for treatment, the basis of her Request is principally the financial harm she says has prevented her from obtaining medical treatment. She has not provided clear support for the claim that a refusal to expedite would adversely affect her illness or treatment.

16The parties have agreed to participate in a mediation, which has been scheduled for July 21, 2009. While the Request is denied, if there is no resolution following the mediation, the Tribunal may issue further case management directions to ensure the hearing is fair to the parties and appropriate to the Application’s particular circumstances.

17I am not seized.