Charles Hinds v. Toronto Transit Commission and Mario Guerra, 2010 HRTO 1197

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Charles Hinds

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission and Mario Guerra

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: May 27, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1197

Indexed as: Hinds v. Toronto Transit Commission

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code"). The applicant alleges that following a heart attack, the employer has failed to accommodate his medical condition and is requiring him to perform duties that are unsafe for him in light of his medical restrictions. The applicant has also filed a Request to Expedite the Application. When asked to describe the urgent circumstances in support of the Request, the applicant states "Medical Restriction – Endanger Life". With regard to the harm that would result if the Request is denied, he alleges that the "company will force me to do work that is unsafe to me (endanger life)."

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 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.

6Without questioning the sincerity of the applicant's concern about his health, other than the assertion that the circumstances described in his Application may endanger his life, the applicant has provided no medical or other information explaining how his health will be compromised if this Application is not expedited. The materials filed do not contain details that would enable me to conclude that there will be significant consequences if this matter is not expedited.

7The Request to Expedite is therefore denied

8I am not seized.