Thomas v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2010 HRTO 2105

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Sharon Thomas Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: October 19, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2105 Indexed as: Thomas v. Toronto Transit Commission

1This is an Application filed on October 5, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code").

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine the applicant's Request for an Interim Remedy and Request to Expedite, filed with her Application. Neither has been served on the respondent and my decision is based on the applicant's materials.

3The Application alleges that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the grounds of disability and age when it refused her application for Wheel Trans service. The remedy she seeks is monetary compensation, which she states will "be determined through mediation."

4The applicant requests an Interim Remedy that the respondent be directed to provide her with Wheel Trans service. In her submissions, she states that she is a diabetic and has developed micro vascular complications and eye disease, causing her to have difficulty in walking, climbing stairs and performing daily tasks. She states that living with the complications of diabetes has made it impossible for her to use regular TTC public transit. She states that if she is not granted the interim remedy sought, it will make it impossible for her to attend medical appointments, seek treatment and leave home. Elsewhere in her materials, she states that she also finds it difficult to travel by car such as a cab in that she may become injured while stepping in and out of regular vehicles.

5In lieu of a declaration, the applicant has filed a letter from her doctor which, in addition to listing from her medical conditions, states "Because of her medical conditions it would help her if she was given Wheel Trans."

6Rules 23.2 and 23.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, relating to requests for interim remedies, state:

23.2 The Tribunal may grant an interim remedy where it is satisfied that:

a) the Application appears to have merit;

b) the balance of harm or convenience favours granting the interim remedy requested; and,

c) it is just and appropriate in the circumstances to do so.

7Normally, the Tribunal's power to order respondents to do or refrain from doing something is contingent upon a finding that they have violated the Code. Interim remedies are extraordinary in that they constitute an order to do or refrain from doing something in the absence of a finding that the Code has been violated. For this reason, an applicant has a significant onus to meet to demonstrate that the request meets the three elements in Rule 23.2: TA v. 60 Montclair, 2009 HRTO 369, as discussed in Homonay v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2009 HRTO 1495.

8Even assuming, without deciding, that the Application meets the first criterion above, in the circumstances of this case, it has not been established that the balance of harm or convenience favours granting the interim remedy requested, or that it is just and appropriate in the circumstances to do so.

9The only "declaration" the applicant has filed in support of her Request is the letter from her doctor. The letter does not address most of the factual assertions made in her submissions on the harm of being denied an interim remedy. I am not convinced that applicant has met the significant onus to demonstrate that the harm or inconvenience to her of being denied the interim remedy outweighs the harm or inconvenience to the respondent of being directed to provide the service pending the completion of proceedings. For the same reason, I conclude that she has not established that it is just and appropriate to grant the interim remedy.

10The Tribunal further denies the Request to Expedite.

11I am not seized of the matter.