Kovios v. Convergys Canada, 2010 HRTO 1401

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Susan Kovios Applicant

-and-

Convergys Canada Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: June 22, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1401 Indexed as: Kovios v. Convergys 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 support of her Request, she states that the issues she has been dealing with are affecting her physical and mental well-being. When asked to describe the harm that would result if the Request to Expedite her Application is denied, she indicates "possible bankruptcy, loss of residence and tarnished credit and loss of funds in LIRA (pension)" as well as increased stress, depression and anxiety. The applicant also filed a letter outlining further details of financial pressures and health issues she says she has been experiencing.

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.

6When asked to provide the date of the last event of discrimination, the applicant indicates it was in 2009 but does not provide a date. It appears that the last events described in the Application took place in the summer of 2009, at least eight months prior the date the applicant filed her 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.