HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Seifu Wondimagnehu
Applicant
-and-
Algonquin College
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Wondimagnehu v. Algonquin College
1The applicant filed this Application on January 8, 2010, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O.1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) alleging discrimination in services on the basis of sex and race. At the same time, he filed a Request to Expedite and a Request for Interim Relief.
2The Application submitted was incomplete, and a Request for Additional Information was sent via email to the applicant on January 14, 2010. Eventually, the applicant submitted the requested information on February 22, 2010. In addition, the Request for Interim Relief was not supported by a signed declaration, as required by Rule 23.3(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The applicant was advised of this deficiency and on February 26, 2010 submitted a signed letter in support of his Request for Interim Relief.
3Even after these matters were corrected, there are insufficient particulars on which to ascertain the basis on which the applicant alleges he was discriminated against. It would appear from a reading of the documents together that he was a second year nursing student, who may have received a failing grade on one or more of his courses. It would also appear, although it is by no means clear, that the applicant was advised that he could not continue on with his studies in nursing.
4In my view, the few facts alleged do not provide sufficient details to allow the respondent to respond to the allegations, or the Tribunal to determine the nature of the allegations of discrimination in the Application or his Requests. Within 10 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant is directed to set out in detail the facts which support his claim of discrimination. In particular, with respect to each allegation in his Application, the applicant should provide details with respect to:
a. What happened?
b. When did each event alleged happen?
c. Who was involved?
d. Why what happened amounts to a violation of the Code by the respondent?
THE REQUEST TO EXPEDITE / THE REQUEST FOR INTERIM RELIEF
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 that 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.
6Rule 23.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, relating to requests for interim remedies, states:
23.2 The Tribunal may grant an interim remedy where it is satisfied that:
a) the Application appears to have merit;
b) the balance of harm or convenience favours granting the interim remedy requested; and,
c) it is just and appropriate in the circumstances to do so.
7As indicated above, the applicant’s Request to Expedite does not contain sufficient information on which such a request could be granted. The applicant has failed to identify any circumstances that would, if the Request to Expedite was denied, affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the Application. He has also failed to allege facts concerning the harm that would result if the request was denied.
8Likewise, the Request for Interim Relief fails on the basis that there is insufficient information to even determine whether this Application has merit. The document submitted by the applicant as his “declaration” is a one-line letter which is completely unresponsive to the factors set out in Rule 23.2.
9In the circumstances, both the Request to Expedite and the Request for Interim Relief are denied.
10I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of March, 2010
“Signed By”
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair