minicounsel

Anderson v. Carleton Condominium Corporation #8, 2010 HRTO 569 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

March 16, 2010

Anderson v. Carleton Condominium Corporation #8, 2010 HRTO 569

Case Summary

The applicant, a condominium resident, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability because the respondent required him to cart his companion dog on common grounds. The applicant requested an expedited proceeding, claiming that carting the dog exacerbated his catastrophic injuries. The respondent opposed the request, arguing the applicant had known of the rule for years and submitted evidence suggesting he could perform physically demanding acts. The Tribunal dismissed the request to expedite, finding the applicant's submissions too vague and lacking medical evidence to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jason Anderson

Applicant

-and-

Carleton Condominium Corporation #8

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: March 16, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 569

Indexed as: Anderson v. Carleton Condominium Corporation #8

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Jason Anderson, Applicant ) On his own behalf

Carleton Condominium Corporation #8, ) Joseph Griffiths, Counsel

Respondent )

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

[3] The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings, which requests that the proceedings be expedited because, despite having catastrophic injuries as a result of a car accident, he is being forced to cart his 100-pound dog, which is prolonging his agony and causing permanent damage to him.

[4] The respondent filed a Response to Request to Expedite Proceedings on March 1, 2010, which opposes the applicant’s Request. The respondent states that the applicant’s Request fails to set out a sufficient basis for an expedited hearing, and fails to establish urgent circumstances that will affect the fair and just resolution of the Application.

[5] The respondent also states that the applicant’s request for urgency is undermined by the fact that he has known of the respondent’s rule prohibiting him from walking his dog on the common elements of the building since at least January 14, 2008, when the owner of the unit where he resides received a letter from the respondent that fined her $50.00 because the applicant violated the rule. The respondent attached the letter to its Response.

[6] The respondent further states that there is incontrovertible evidence that the applicant’s “catastrophic” injuries do not preclude him from performing physically demanding acts. The respondent attached a photograph to its Response, which allegedly shows the applicant pushing a motorcycle to his unit.

[7] The 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.

[8] Furthermore, in [Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 53](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2008/53), at para. [9](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2008/53), 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.

[9] 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 facts that the applicant set out in his Request are too vague and lacking in detail to justify expediting the proceedings. The applicant has not explained when the discrimination began, or why he did not file his Application earlier, and he did not submit any medical evidence to substantiate his allegation that carting his dog is causing permanent damage to his health. The applicant’s Request to expedite the proceedings is therefore dismissed.

[10] I am not seized of this matter

Dated at Toronto, this 16^th day of March, 2010.

“Signed By”

Ken Bhattacharjee

Vice-chair