Chartier v. Access Better Living, 2010 HRTO 1070

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Claudette Chartier on behalf of Line Chartier

Applicant

-and-

Access Better Living Inc. and Linda Wright

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: May 12, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1070

Indexed as: Chartier v. Access Better Living

1This Interim Decision deals with a Request to Expedite this Application, filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The applicant alleges that her right to equal treatment with respect to services without discrimination on the basis of disability has been violated by the respondents.

2The applicant is a person with a disability who has relied upon the funded services of the respondent agency for aspects of personal care. These services were suspended effective April 1, 2010. She has been able to obtain such services privately, although at a cost to her and at a time of day that is less convenient. Her Request to Expedite cites the stress, financial cost, and worry of finding alternative care providers.

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, 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. The agreement of the parties is not determinative about whether an application will be expedited because an expedited proceeding may affect the rights of other parties in the Tribunal's process, whose applications could be delayed. In Ebrahimi v. Durham District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1062, the Tribunal noted that another basis for expediting an application may be where a requested appropriate remedy will be unavailable without expediting an application.

5The applicant is receiving the services she requires, although at a time of day that is more difficult for her and at a financial cost. However, should she be successful in her Application, a remedy can compensate her for the financial expenses. The Tribunal has generally held that emotional and financial stress do not constitute grounds for an expedited proceeding. Accordingly, I must conclude that these circumstances do not meet the high standard set out in the Tribunal's jurisprudence. The Request to Expedite is therefore dismissed.

6However, as I note that the parties have indicated an interest in mediation the Tribunal will, in light of these very particular circumstances, schedule a mediation on the earliest possible date which is mutually agreeable to the parties and available to the Tribunal after the Response has been filed or the time for filing has passed.

7The respondents request a brief extension to file their response in view of the need for translation. The Response date is therefore extended until June 10, 2010.

8I am not seized.