David Free v. Municipality of Magnetawan and Richard Smith, 2009 HRTO 951

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Free Applicant

-and-

Municipality of Magnetawan and Richard Smith Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: July 2, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 951 Indexed as: Free v. Magnetawan (Municipality)

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on June 19, 2009 alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age 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 risk that the respondent will fill the position he currently holds making the matter more complex as it will enter the realm of “wrongful dismissal”.

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 factors the applicant describes including the risk that an applicant’s position may be filled by another person does not constitute an indication of urgency as compared with other employment discrimination cases; see Russell v. Georgina (Town), 2009 HRTO 466. Without questioning the sincerity of the applicant’s concerns, in my view, the harm the applicant alleges he 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.