Fleck v. Academy of Learning-Cumberland, 2010 HRTO 6

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tamara Fleck

Applicant

-and-

Academy of Learning-Cumberland, Gail Trotman and Mihkel Ranniste

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: January 4, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 6 Indexed as: Fleck v. Academy of Learning-Cumberland

INTRODUCTION

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on October 22, 2009 pursuant to section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities on the basis of disability, marital status, association with a person identified by a ground in the Code, and reprisal, along with a Request to Expedite Proceedings.

2On November 12, 2009, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to the applicant in which it stated that it appeared that there may be an issue as to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to process the Application. In particular, the Notice stated that the applicant had not indicated how the events in question are related to the grounds relied on, namely marital status, disability, association with a person identified by a ground, and reprisal. The Tribunal invited the applicant to explain how the circumstances she described came within the grounds she listed as defined by the Code, and why she believes the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

3On November 13, 2009, the applicant filed submissions in response to the Notice from the Tribunal.

4This Interim Decision addresses the jurisdictional issue and the Request to Expedite.

JURISDICTION

5The Application arises out of the applicant’s experience while a student at the Academy of Learning. In general terms, the applicant appears to allege that the Academy and the personal respondents discriminated against her when she was a student there and dismissed her from her studies contrary to the Code.

6In her submissions, the applicant states her spouse has multiple sclerosis and that she believes she has been discriminated against because of her association with a person identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination. In this respect, she relies on marital status and reprisal and also highlights that her spouse has a disability. Among other things, the applicant alleges she was dismissed from the Academy at least in part because of her attendance, which had been affected by her care of her spouse.

7Given the applicant’s submissions in response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss, it is not plain and obvious that the Application does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Dismissing the Application pursuant to the Notice would be premature.

8The Tribunal shall therefore deliver this Interim Decision to the respondents with a copy of the Application, the Notice of Intent to Dismiss and the applicant’s responding submissions. The respondents are required to file their Responses within 35 days of delivery, pursuant to the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

9This Interim Decision does not affect the respondents’ right to raise a question regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear all or part of this Application as this matter proceeds.

DECISION ON REQUEST TO EXPEDITE

10The applicant filed a Request to Expedite at the same time that she filed her Application. In describing the urgent circumstances that require it be expedited, the applicant refers to the fact that she is on OSAP (which I presume is a reference to Ontario Student Assistance Program) and that this matter should be completed before she has to repay the loan. She describes the harm that will result if the Request is denied as “financial hardship”.

11The 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 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.

12In 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.

13The financial harm which the applicant alleges she will suffer is not an urgent circumstance which warrants dealing with the Application on an expedited basis. As states in Silverberg v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation 757, 2009 HRTO 910:

Many cases where an applicant alleges discrimination will involve financial hardship. Purely financial losses will rarely constitute urgent circumstances, which would prevent the Tribunal from fairly and justly dealing with the merits of the Application in accordance with its usual expeditious procedures within the meaning of Rule 21.2.

14The applicant has not demonstrated that the circumstances are truly urgent to justify giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters. The Request to Expedite is denied.

15I am not seized.