Steven McKinnon v. Legal Aid Ontario, 2010 HRTO 473

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Steven McKinnon

Applicant

-and-

Legal Aid Ontario

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: March 2, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 473

Indexed as: McKinnon v. Legal Aid Ontario

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request that the proceedings be expedited.

2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on November 16, 2009, alleging discrimination in the provision of goods, services or facilities on the grounds of family status and marital status. The Application essentially arises out of the applicant’s efforts to receive legal aid certificates or to reverse the cancellation of legal aid certificates.

3Several months after filing the Application, the applicant filed the Request to Expedite Proceedings. In describing the urgent circumstances that support the Request, the applicant refers to the need to have legal representation for upcoming processes before Boards and Tribunals, such as the Landlord and Tenant Board and the Social Benefits Tribunal. In describing the harm that would result if his Request is denied, he states that waiting for a decision will not give him a fair or reasonable way to have equal representation before the Tribunals, Boards and Divisional Court.

4In responding to the Request, the respondent states that the Request rests on what appears to be a misapprehension of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and powers. Specifically, the applicant appears to seek a remedy of state funded legal representation, and that the Tribunal neither has the jurisdiction nor the power to order the respondent to issue a legal aid certificate or otherwise fund the applicant’s legal representation.

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. The Tribunal must consider whether the circumstances justify giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other applications: see Russell v. Georgina (Town), 2009 HRTO 466, at para. 3.

7Having 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. The possibility of not having legal representation before tribunals is not a circumstance that supports expedition of this matter.

8The applicant’s Request to Expedite the proceedings is therefore dismissed. The parties have consented to mediation of this Application. The respondent’s request to dismiss the Application under section 45.1 or on the basis that it does not raise issues under the Code or does not establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Code will be dealt with following mediation, if necessary.

9I am not seized of this matter.