Leopold v. North York YMCA, 2010 HRTO 1268

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BETWEEN:

Hillel Leopold Applicant

-and-

North York YMCA and Jorge Rojas Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: June 3, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1268 Indexed as: Leopold v. North York YMCA

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on April 23, 2010 alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities on the basis of disability and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code"). The applicant 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 if the matter is not expedited, the applicant states "rapid decline of my physical condition and repair of my reputation". With regard to the harm that would result if the Request is denied, the applicant cites neurological and nerve degeneration.

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.

5Having reviewed the materials, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal's jurisprudence. Without questioning the sincerity of the applicant's concerns about his health, the applicant has provided no medical information supporting the need for expedition of the Application based on his health. 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. Further, the applicant's desire to repair his reputation is not an urgent circumstance requiring a particularly rapid resolution of this Application.

6When asked to provide the date of the last event of discrimination, the applicant indicates it was May 8, 2009. While it appears that the applicant may have been looking for other facilities that would meet his needs, he waited almost one year before filing his Application. Except in the rarest of circumstances, a party who has delayed in filing his or her Application without sufficient explanation will not be given the priority for Tribunal resources of an expedited proceeding: Kwan v. Hospital for Sick Children, 2009 HRTO 621.

7The Request to Expedite is denied.

8I am not seized.