Flanagan v. Diversified Global Asset Management, 2010 HRTO 676

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kara Flanagan

Applicant

-and-

Diversified Global Asset Management Corporation

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: March 26, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 676

Indexed as: Flanagan v. Diversified Global Asset Management

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Kara Flanagan, Applicant ) On her own behalf

Diversified Global Asset Management ) Thomas A. Stefanik, Counsel

Corporation, Respondent )

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

2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended on December 4, 2009, and a Request to Expedite Proceedings on February 23, 2010.

3The applicant requests that the proceedings be expedited because she is moving out of Ontario for work, and will not be available to participate in a mediation or hearing if the proceedings are not expedited.

4The respondent filed a Response to a Request for an Order on February 26, 2010, which opposes the applicant’s Request. The respondent states that the applicant failed to provide factual support for her Request. Specifically, the applicant did not provide any details as to where she is moving, when she is moving, and why this would have any implication on her ability to participate in a hearing. Furthermore, the Application states that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred on April 20, 2009, but the Application was not filed with the Tribunal until December 4, 2009, and the applicant failed to explain the reason for the delay.

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 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.

6Furthermore, in 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.

7In Kwan v. Hospital for Sick Children, 2009 HRTO 621, at para. 2 , the Tribunal also held:

Except in the rarest of circumstances, a party who has delayed in filing his or her Application without explanation will not be given the priority for Tribunal resources of an expedited proceeding.

8In 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 her Request are too vague and lacking in detail to justify expediting the proceedings. In particular, the applicant did not specify when she is moving or where she is moving to, and did not explain why she will be unable to participate in a mediation or hearing if she lives outside Ontario. In addition, the applicant waited more than seven months to file her Application, and did not specify whether her decision to move out of Ontario occurred before or after she filed her Application. The applicant’s Request to expedite the proceedings is therefore dismissed.

9I am not seized of this matter.