Iole Di Giovanni v. Universal Workers Union, LIUNA Local 183 and Durval Terceira, 2010 HRTO 704

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Iole Di Giovanni

Applicant

-and-

Universal Workers Union, LIUNA Local 183 and Durval Terceira

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: March 31, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 704

Indexed as: Di Giovanni v. Universal Workers Union, LIUNA Local 183

1This is an Application filed February 9, 2010 alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of sex and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The date of the last event in the Application is October 31, 2009. On March 11, 2010, the applicant filed a Request to Expedite the Application. This Interim Decision determines the Request to Expedite.

2The applicant states that she is a single mother supporting two children. She states that she is currently on short-term disability, but that when these payments end on March 31, 2010, the reduction in her wages and benefits will impact on her family significantly. She also cites her concern with returning to work. Specifically, if medical clearance is given for her to return to work at the end of March, she believes she will be exposed to continuing harassment and a poisoned work environment. She states that co-workers are experiencing similar harassment and that “it is very important that the Commission interview them as quickly as possible as their statements are very important to the outcome of this Application.”

3The 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.

4In 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.

5In 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.

6Having reviewed the materials, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence. The applicant appears to be under the misapprehension that the Tribunal will interview witnesses to her Application and that time is of the essence in doing so. In fact, the Tribunal does not interview witnesses. Rather, should an application proceed to a hearing, the parties are responsible for arranging to summons any witnesses they wish to call to give evidence at the hearing.

7The other circumstances described in the Request to Expedite relate to potential financial hardship and concerns with ongoing discrimination. The Tribunal has noted that purely financial losses are common in applications involving allegations of discrimination in employment and 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. Further, while the applicant has expressed a belief that should she return to work she may face ongoing harassment, I cannot conclude based on the material filed that this possibility is a harm that warrants giving this Application priority over other matters. Moreover, the applicant delayed over three months in filing her Application and waited an additional month before she filed her Request to Expedite. The Tribunal has stated that 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: Kwan v. Hospital for Sick Children, 2009 HRTO 621.

8The Request to Expedite is denied. I note that the applicant has agreed to attempt mediation to resolve her Application. If the respondents also agree to mediation, the Tribunal will schedule mediation on the earliest available date.

9I am not seized.