Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
John Hart Applicant
-and-
Labbe Media Inc., Rick Labbe and Kerry Lee Labbe Respondents
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin Date: March 26, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 665 Indexed as: Hart v. Labbe Media
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), on February 17, 2010, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment and reprisal. The applicant has also filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings with the Application. This Interim Decision addresses whether the Application should be served on the respondents and the Request to Expedite.
Background
2The Application arises out of the applicant's employment at CJWA Radio in Wawa. The applicant states that the radio station is owned and operated by the corporate respondent. The narrative in the Application outlines the allegations underlying the Application and additional details of the applicant's employment. Among other things, the applicant states that he accepted employment on a contract "whereas the Government was paying the Radio station my wage" and at the end of the contract, the expectation was that he would be employed by the radio station if his performance was "right". He states that the respondents "fabricated" a reason so that they would not have to hire him; elsewhere the applicant states that the respondents terminated him on August 12, 2009.
3On February 25, 2010, the Tribunal provided the applicant with a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, indicating that it appears that the Application is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because "the Respondent appears to be a federal government department, agency or a federally regulated business or service." The applicant was directed to provide written submissions in response.
4The applicant provided submissions, dated March 3, 2010, stating among other things that his complaint should be treated as a complaint involving two individuals and that the "employer's affilaition [sic] to obtain a Broadcast license should not place him above Ontario laws…".
5Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure provides that the Tribunal may dismiss an application that is outside its jurisdiction. Rules 13.2 to 13.5 provide for a process under which the Tribunal may initiate a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis of jurisdiction, which occurs without the application being sent to the respondent. Under the Tribunal's jurisprudence, an application will only be dismissed at this preliminary stage if it is "plain and obvious" that the matter falls under federal jurisdiction: Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.
6In my view, having regard to the material filed, it is not plain and obvious that this matter falls under federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to deal with this Application and the Application will be served on the respondents with a copy of this Interim Decision and they will be required to file a Response. The respondents may raise any issues, preliminary or otherwise, in response.
7This is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction in respect of this Application.
Request to Expedite Proceedings
8In his Application, the applicant alleges that he experienced discrimination on August 12, 2009, when he left work because of illness and was subsequently terminated.
9In his Request to Expedite Proceedings, the applicant describes that he is being stopped from obtaining work in the field that he is trained to work in. In addition, he describes the harm that would result if his Request is not granted as being denied one of the only types of work that he can do as a disabled person and the permanent damage to his reputation.
10Rule 21.1 of the Tribunal's Rules 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.
11In 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.
12In 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.
13Having reviewed the applicant's materials, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal's jurisprudence. In my view, the applicant has not submitted facts that are so urgent so as to justify giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters. The circumstances relied on to support his Request relate to the difficulties he now faces in finding alternative work and the damage to his reputation; circumstances which are not unusual in an employment discrimination case involving a termination. Moreover, I find that the time between the termination of his employment and the filing of a complete Application with a Request to Expedite,