Robert Pellerin v. Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud and Maryse Francella, 2010 HRTO 26

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robert Pellerin

Applicant

-and-

Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud and Maryse Francella

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: January 6, 2010

Citation: 2009 HRTO 26

Indexed as: Pellerin v. Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s Request to Expedite this matter. This Application was the subject of a previous request for dismissal by the respondent on the basis of a release: see the Interim Decision dated August 10, 2009, 2009 HRTO 1238.

2The Request to Expedite was filed on October 8, 2009 and the respondents filed their response on October 16, 2009. As a result of a processing error, a decision on the Request was not made sooner. The Tribunal regrets the error.

3In support of the request to expedite, the applicant alleges that witnesses who wish to testify fear consequences from the respondent, and states he wishes to “ensure the wellbeing of these witnesses, and put an end to their stress” and that “harassment and intimidation was done by the Board”. He also alleges that employees were intimidated by the respondent into filing a complaint that led to his resignation.

4The 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.

5In 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.

6I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence. The applicant provides no details or evidence in support of his general and serious allegations and, even assuming them to be true, there is no reason to believe that an expedited hearing is necessary to address these issues.

7I also note the respondent’s concern, expressed in its Response, that the applicant’s revised allegations do not comply with the directions in paras. 18-21 of the previous Interim Decision, and do not make allegations that fall under the Code.

8The Registrar will shortly issue a Notice of Hearing in this matter. I also make the following directions:

(1) The parties shall deliver to each other their list and copies of all arguably relevant documents, as required by Rule 16.1, within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

(2) A case management conference call will be scheduled to take place in mid-February.