Sauve v. Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, 2010 HRTO 533

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Carmela Sauve

Applicant

-and-

Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, Katherine Duffy, Kim Benson and David Mallette

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: March 11, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 533

Indexed as: Sauve v. Ottawa-Carleton District School Board

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and marital status contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). She has filed a Request to Expedite her Application, stating that she cannot continue to work in her current location and that job positions may be filled before the Application is resolved. She also cites the effects of the issues raised in the Application on her quality of life financially, physically and mentally.

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 respondents. 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 Tribunal has held that the factors the applicant describes, including financial, physical and mental stress and the risk that positions may be filled by another person, do not constitute the type of urgent circumstances requiring an expedited process. Without questioning the sincerity of the applicant’s concerns, in my view, the harm the applicant alleges she will suffer is not an urgent circumstance which warrants giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters. The Request to Expedite is denied.

6I am not seized.