Joanne Dimovitis v. Georgian Corporation, 2010 HRTO 1349

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Joanne Dimovitis

Applicant

-and-

Georgian Corporation, Loretto Circosta, Anthony Maida and Gene Maida

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: June 15, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1349

Indexed as: Dimovitis v. Georgian

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of sex and disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite the Application. The applicant states that she is currently on medical leave and has no income from her employer. She states that she has been forced to move out of her home and to rent it out while she stays with friends and family. When asked to describe the harm that would result if the Request to Expedite her Application is denied, she indicates “continued financial hardship as well as implication for my physical and mental health.”

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. The circumstances described in the Request to Expedite relate to financial hardship and its potential impact on the applicant’s well-being. The Tribunal has noted that purely financial losses are common in applications alleging discrimination in employment and will rarely constitute urgent circumstances which would prevent the Tribunal from fairly and justly dealing with the merits of the Application in accordance with its usual expeditious procedures within the meaning of Rule 21.2. As well, while I do not doubt the sincerity of the applicant’s concerns regarding her health, many applications before the Tribunal involve ongoing implications for a person’s physical and mental health and I cannot conclude that the harm which the applicant states may occur warrants giving this Application priority over other matters.

6The Request to Expedite is denied.

7I am not seized.