Lopez v. LuCliff Company, 2010 HRTO 368

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Teresa Lopez

Applicant

-and-

LuCliff Company Limited and Henry Fu

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: February 18, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 368

Indexed as: Lopez v. LuCliff Company

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 18, 2010, alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability. The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite (“Request”) with her Application. The Application named “Commercial & Residential Development” as the organizational respondent and the style of cause has been amended to reflect the proper name provided by the respondents in their materials.

2The applicant alleges that the respondents refused her request that they remove wax from floor tiles inside her apartment and that it is very slippery for a person with a disability. She also alleges that she moved to the building because of the “push button” door but found out after that it only works during office hours. She also alleges that the bathroom has no “grab bar”. She alleges that she asked to move out and break her lease due to her “problem” but they refused. She alleges that she has fallen four times on the floors and is concerned that she may have a bad fall and seriously injure herself.

3On February 9, 2010, the respondents filed Responses to the Request, indicating that they have tile floors in the washrooms, hallways and kitchens but none of the floors have wax on them. They also indicate that the applicant is allowed to install bathtub handles but the applicant is responsible for the cost of the installation. With respect to the entrance, they submit that in addition to the accessible doors at the commercial entrance to the building, 24-hour security staff is available seven days per week to assist people. Finally, the respondents state that they are prepared to make an exemption to allow the applicant to move out prior to the termination of her lease without having to pay a penalty.

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.

6Having 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.

7The applicant’s Request to expedite the proceedings is therefore dismissed.

8I am not seized of this matter.