Cheryl Bailey v. Community Living Toronto, 2010 HRTO 1179

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Cheryl Bailey Applicant

-and-

Community Living Toronto Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: May 26, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1179 Indexed as: Bailey v. Community Living Toronto

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability 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. In describing the urgent circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the Application and the harm that will result if the Request is denied the applicant states "mental health, physical health, wellbeing of family".

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 applicant's materials, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal's jurisprudence.

6Other than stating that her mental and physical health and the wellbeing of her family will be affected, the applicant has provided no details to support a finding that this Application should be given priority over other matters before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that the types of factors cited by the applicant do not generally constitute indications of urgency as compared with other employment discrimination cases.

7The applicant has not identified truly urgent circumstances that might prevent the "fair and just resolution" of her Application on the merits if the proceedings are not expedited. The Request to Expedite is denied.

8I am not seized.