Nahid Westberg v. Tim Hortons, 2010 HRTO 1175

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Nahid Westberg Applicant

-and-

Tim Hortons Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: May 26, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1175 Indexed as: Westberg v. Tim Hortons

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities on the basis of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that the respondent is failing to appropriately accommodate a need related to a disability, in particular, that his coffee be heated for thirty seconds to kill off harmful bacteria that could be present and could harm his health. The applicant has also filed a Request to Expedite the Application. When asked to describe the urgent circumstances in support of his Request to Expedite, the applicant states that his life has become practically paralyzed because of this issue as he is no longer able to freely go to the restaurants that he should and that consequently he is experiencing humiliation among his friends. In describing the harm that would result if the Request is denied, he states that he will fall drastically behind with his part-time job.

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 Ebrahimi v. Durham District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1062, the Tribunal noted that another basis for expediting an application may be where a requested (and arguably appropriate) remedy will be moot, or unavailable, without expediting an application.

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 respondent. Having reviewed the materials, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence.

6I do not doubt the sincerity of the applicant’s concerns about the impact of these events on him. However, many applications before the Tribunal involve allegations of ongoing discrimination which may also result in humiliation. As well, the applicant has not explained why the events described in his Application could have an impact on his part-time job. I cannot conclude that the harm which the applicant states may occur warrants giving this Application priority over other matters. The Request to Expedite is denied.

7I am not seized.