St. Denis v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care), 2010 HRTO 320

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Stephen St. Denis Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care (Assistive Devices Program) Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright Date: February 11, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 320 Indexed as: St. Denis v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care)

Reasons for Decision

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on January 29, 2010 alleging discrimination in services contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The applicant alleges that the failure of the respondent's Assistive Devices Program (ADP) to pay for the cost of batteries for an ADP funded power wheelchair discriminates against him on the basis of disability. He has filed a Request to Expedite the Application, stating that his current wheelchair "is running on borrowed time". He is concerned about potential safety issues associated with his current wheelchair as well as financial costs of potential repairs that may be required while he awaits the resolution of his Application. He states that from both a safety and financial point of view he is "sitting on a time bomb."

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.

5In 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.

6I do not doubt the sincerity of the applicant's concerns about the state of his current wheelchair. However, at this point, they are speculative. I cannot conclude that a potential risk that his wheelchair could break or require expensive repairs is an urgent circumstance which warrants giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters. Moreover, if the applicant is required to purchase a battery for a new power wheelchair and it is subsequently found that the failure to fund it is discriminatory, the Tribunal can order compensation for its cost.

7It would appear that the applicant waited approximately five months after the last alleged incident of discrimination, which he indicates was August 26, 2009, before filing his Application. Except in the rarest of circumstances, a party who has delayed in filing his or her Application without explanation will not be given the priority for Tribunal resources of an expedited proceeding: Kwan v. Hospital for Sick Children, 2009 HRTO 621.

8The applicant has not identified truly urgent circumstances that might prevent the "fair and just resolution" of his Application on the merits if the proceedings are not expedited. The Request to Expedite is denied.

9I am not seized.