Chris Carpenter v. Westboro Housing Co-operative, 2010 HRTO 22

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Chris Carpenter Applicant

-and-

Westboro Housing Co-operative Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin Date: January 6, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 22 Indexed as: Carpenter v. Westboro Housing Co-operative

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on December 14, 2009, alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of family status contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In particular, the applicant alleges that his application for membership in the respondent Co-operative was denied because the Board of Directors assumed he had to pay significant child and/or spousal support. The applicant has filed a Request to Expedite the Application, stating that the degree and duration of his pain and suffering is dependent on a quick resolution and that if the Application is not expedited, his family will be delayed from moving from their existing home to new housing closer to his place of employment.

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 accordance with Rules 5.2 and 21.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal does not require a Response to Request to Expedite from the respondent. Having reviewed the applicant’s materials, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence.

5The Tribunal has held that the types of factors cited by the applicant do not generally constitute indications of urgency as compared with other housing discrimination cases. In particular, the emotional harm that the applicant cites and the concern with delay in moving to new housing closer to his place of employment is not an urgent circumstance which warrants giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters.

6The Request to Expedite is denied.

7I am not seized.