Marina Medakovic v. Toronto Transit Commission and Richard Ridge, 2010 HRTO 396

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Marina Medakovic Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission and Richard Ridge Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: February 19, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 396 Indexed as: Medakovic v. Toronto Transit Commission

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal alleging discrimination in services on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship and ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code"). The applicant has filed a Request to Expedite the Application, alleging that the respondents are hiding and planning to destroy a videotape of the incident that forms the basis for the Application. The applicant requests expedited proceedings to protect the videotape evidence.

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 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.

5The applicant's suggestion that the respondent will destroy videotape evidence is speculative. I note that the Final Report of the Toronto Transit Commission's Special Constable Services in relation to a complaint submitted to it by the applicant references the video images that the applicant is concerned about. It therefore appears that the TTC is not seeking to hide the existence of the videotape or the content of images captured therein.

6The Tribunal's Rules of Procedure provide for a process by which arguably relevant materials must be disclosed to other parties to an application prior to a hearing. In any event, the respondents now have notice of the applicant's concern, and destruction of relevant records at this point could give rise to a negative inference on the part of the Tribunal if this matter proceeds to a hearing: Russell v. Georgina (Town), 2009 HRTO 466.

7The applicant has not identified truly urgent circumstances that might prevent the "fair and just resolution" of her Application on the merits if the proceedings are not expedited. The Request to Expedite is denied.

8I am not seized.