Michelle Robertson v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, 2010 HRTO 1368

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michelle Robertson Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Doug Dalgleish, Tom O’Connell, Charlie Boorsma, Mark Dittenhoffer and Peter Sherfield Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: June 16, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1368 Indexed as: Robertson v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on May 10, 2010 alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and sex and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). On May 12, 2010, 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 her Application if the matter is not expedited, the applicant states that the issues in the case have been ongoing for five years and have weighed heavily on her health. With regard to the harm that would result if the Request is denied, the applicant states that she could lose her job, lose pay or become more ill due to constant worry.

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 applicant’s concerns with regard to potential job loss or loss of pay appear to be speculative. While I do not doubt the sincerity of the applicant’s concerns regarding her ongoing work environment and her health, the Tribunal has generally held that these types of factors do not constitute grounds for an expedited proceeding. 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.