Gill v. Norfolk (County), 2010 HRTO 416

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Miechelle Gill

Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of Norfolk County, Jill Thompson, Karen Boughner, Glen Steen, Bill Allcock

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: February 24, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 416

Indexed as: Gill v. Norfolk (County)

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on January 19, 2010 alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The applicant alleges that her employer has failed to accommodate her physical and mental disabilities, including by failing to relocate her to its Caledonia office. On January 26, 2010 the applicant filed a Request to Expedite the Application. She cities the worsening of her mental health condition and overall health and "increase in suicidal thoughts because of the risk of removing [herself] from all aspects of life" as the basis for the Request.

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.

4Having reviewed the materials, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal's jurisprudence. The main accommodation issue raised in the Application concerns the applicant's work location. The applicant has indicated that she has already been relocated to the Caledonia office, as requested. While the applicant also states in general terms that she needs other accommodation, the nature of the accommodation is not particularized. While I do not question the sincerity of the applicant's description of her feelings, she has not explained in any detail how a particularly rapid hearing would assist in alleviating her symptoms.

5The Request to Expedite is denied. I note that the applicant has agreed to attempt mediation to resolve her Application. If the respondents also agree to mediation, the Tribunal will schedule mediation on the earliest available date.

6I am not seized.