Daniel Graham v. City of Hamilton, 2010 HRTO 1346

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Daniel Graham Applicant

-and-

City of Hamilton Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: June 16, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1346 Indexed as: Graham v. Hamilton (City)

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on May 7, 2010 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 Application alleges that the respondent allows persons who use walkers, canes and wheelchairs on its bus system for free, but charges transit fare to persons who are missing all or part of their leg. He indicates that as he cannot afford to pay for public transit he must instead walk to his destination.

2The 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 if the matter is not expedited, the applicant states "I am suffering and need immediate remedy." With regard to the harm that would result if the Request is denied, the applicant cites more pain and blisters to his limb.

3The 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.

4In 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 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.

6Having 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 alleged inability to afford to pay for public transit is the type of financial circumstance which the Tribunal has found not to be an urgent circumstance that warrants giving an application priority over other matters before it.

7The Request to Expedite is denied.

8I am not seized.