Monk v. Uproar Paint & Paper, 2010 HRTO 23

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Allison Monk

Applicant

-and-

Uproar Paint & Paper and Janise Saikaley

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: January 6, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 23

Indexed as: Monk v. Uproar Paint & Paper

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on November 19, 2009, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to expedite her Application.

2The applicant was employed as an interior designer with the respondent for several years. Among other things, the applicant alleges that she was not allowed to return to work following her maternity leave.

3The applicant has filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing her inability to acquire information for her portfolio (since she was not allowed to return to work to obtain material for the same) thus impeding her search for alternative work; the stress caused by the financial implications of being out of work; and the possibility of complications with her current pregnancy which may result from the added stress.

4The respondents have filed a Response to the Application, as well as the Request to Expedite. The respondents consent to the applicant’s Request.

5The 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.

6In 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.

7Having reviewed the applicant’s materials and notwithstanding the respondent’s consent to the Request, I cannot conclude that the Request meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence.

8The Tribunal has held that the types of factors cited by the applicant, namely financial strain and the associated stress, do not generally constitute indications of urgency as compared with other employment discrimination cases which involve a termination. Further, without questioning the sincerity of the applicant’s concern that the stress “could” result in complications with her pregnancy, in the absence of further information I cannot conclude that what is framed as a potential harm is an urgent circumstance which warrants giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters. The Request to Expedite is therefore denied.

9I note that all parties have indicated their agreement to mediation. The Registrar is asked to schedule a mediation as soon as possible.

10I am not seized.