Susan Sutherland v. Constance Hamilton Housing Cooperative and Carla Campbell, 2010 HRTO 346

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Susan Sutherland

Applicant

-and-

Constance Hamilton Housing Cooperative and Carla Campbell

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: February 16, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 346

Indexed as: Sutherland v. Constance Hamilton Housing Cooperative

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), on January 4, 2010, alleging discrimination and harassment in housing on the basis of family status. The applicant alleges, among other things, that she resides in a two-bedroom unit in the respondent Housing Cooperative with her adult son who has a disability. She alleges that on December 21, 2009, she received notice from the respondents that her subsidy would be revoked, as of January 1, 2010, because her son had not provided the respondents with an income tax assessment for 2008. She alleges that she is being treated differently than other members of the Housing Cooperative.

2On January 15, 2010, the applicant also filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings, submitting that the individual respondent has set the stage for evicting her and her son since July 2009. She states that, since her Application was sent to the Tribunal, the individual respondent has twice refused to accept her cheque for subsidized rent for January 2010. She also states that on January 14, 2010 the individual respondent wrote to her and indicated that if she did not pay the outstanding amount owed, she would be reported to the Board of Directors at their next meeting and that this may put her housing in jeopardy and start the eviction process.

3In correspondence to the Tribunal dated February 5, 2010, counsel for the respondents indicated that they consent to having the Application expedited and that they are agreeable to participating in mediation.

4On February 11, 2010, the applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of correspondence from her to the individual respondent wherein she refers to a letter from the respondents, dated February 10, 2010, informing her that if she did not pay her arrears by February 17, 2010, she would be asked to appear before the Board of Directors.

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.

7In the case at hand, the respondent consents to the Request to Expedite. However, this does not end the matter. The Tribunal must consider whether the circumstances in this case are truly so urgent as to justify giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other applications: see Russell v. Georgina (Town), 2009 HRTO 466, at para. 3.

8Having reviewed the materials, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal's jurisprudence. In my view, the applicant has not submitted facts that are so urgent as to justify giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters. In particular, there is no indication that the respondents have actually commenced eviction proceedings against the applicant, at this point in time.

9The applicant's Request to expedite the proceedings is therefore dismissed. As both parties are agreeable to mediation, the Tribunal will schedule mediation on the earliest possible date which is mutually agreeable to the parties.

10I am not seized of this matter.