HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Adonis Rosalle
Applicant
-and-
MJR Collection Services Limited and MJR Collection Services
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Sherry Liang
Indexed as: Rosalle v. MJR Collection Services
1This is an Application filed on February 8, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The Application was accompanied by a Request to Expedite Proceedings.
2In completing Form 1, the applicant only identified reprisal or threat of reprisal as the basis for the Application. On April 12, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“Notice”). The applicant was advised that the Application did not appear to raise an issue the Tribunal can resolve. The applicant was directed to provide written submissions to explain how the facts alleged in the Application constitute a reprisal or any other form of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.
3The applicant responded to the Notice with a letter dated May 11, 2010. Having regard to this letter and the other material in the file, the Tribunal will continue processing the Application. The reference to a “reprisal” under the Code appears to have been made in error but it is not plain and obvious that all of the matters the applicant raises are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
4The Tribunal denies the Request to Expedite. In 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.
5In 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. In particular, the financial harm the applicant alleges he will suffer is not an urgent circumstance which warrants giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters.
6The Application will be sent to the respondents along with the correspondence between the applicant and the Tribunal in regards to the Notice, the applicant’s Request to Expedite, and the applicant’s letter of March 17, 2010 which will be treated as part of his Application.
7I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto this 19th day of May, 2010.
”signed by”________________
Sherry Liang
Vice-chair