Shi v. Holcim (Canada), 2010 HRTO 649

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Weihua (Marie) Shi

Applicant

-and-

Holcim (Canada) Inc. and Anna Maccani

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: March 25, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 649

Indexed as: Shi v. Holcim (Canada)

1This is an Application filed with the Tribunal alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status, marital status and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant states the respondents terminated her employment on January 15, 2010. The applicant has filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing her concern that the “documents, proof or evidences” she had access to during her employment were taken away by the respondents or could be deleted or modified by the respondents at any time. She states that the harm that would result if the request is denied is “any delay could cause further difficulties in obtaining proof/evidences”.

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 respondent. 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 types of factors cited by the applicant do not generally constitute indications of urgency as compared with other employment discrimination cases. The applicant’s description of the potential for the loss of evidence is general and speculative. Her concerns about not being able to access evidence as she no longer works for the respondents are addressed by the disclosure and production obligations set out in the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The respondents now have notice of the applicant’s concerns, and the destruction of relevant records at this point could give rise to a negative inference on the part of the Tribunal if this matter proceeds to a hearing; Russell v. Georgina (Town), 2009 HRTO 466.

6In the circumstances, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that expediting this Application is necessary or appropriate. The Request to Expedite is denied.

7I am not seized.