Susan Kovios v. Inteleservices Canada – One Touch Direct, 2010 HRTO 1400

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Susan Kovios Applicant

-and-

Inteleservices Canada – One Touch Direct Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: June 22, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1400 Indexed as: Kovios v. Inteleservices Canada

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on May 14, 2010 alleging discrimination and harassment in employment 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 also filed a Request to Expedite the Application. In describing the urgent circumstances she is experiencing and harm that will result if her request is denied, the the applicant lists extreme financial hardship, and a concern that she will lose her house, experience more stress, anxiety or other health issues and will be “unable to move forward in many ways”.

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 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. 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.