Maazbin Bhomisha v. Transat A.T., 2010 HRTO 738

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Maazbin Bhomisha

Applicant

-and-

Transat A.T.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: April 1, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 738

Indexed as: Bhomisha v. Transat A.T.

1This is an Application filed on July 6, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). This Interim Decision addresses a Request to Expedite made by the applicant.

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.

3The applicant is requesting that her Application be expedited on the basis that there has been a prolonged delay in processing her Application due to the unavailability of the respondent and that she would like closure to this matter as she has waited almost a year for her Application to be resolved and to get justice.

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 respondents.

5In 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.

6Having reviewed the applicant’s materials, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence. The applicant has raised the general concern that the processing of her Application is taking too long. However, the applicant has not identified specific issues arising from her Application that require urgent resolution. The applicant’s further interest in resolving her Application in order for her to get closure is an understandable interest but is not a compelling reason to deal with her Application on an urgent basis.

7The applicant has referred to the unavailability of the respondent in her Request to Expedite. This appears to principally be in reference to the fact that the respondent asked to reschedule the hearing of the applicant’s Application originally scheduled for March 15, 16, 17 and 29, 2010. The Tribunal allowed this request and the hearing was rescheduled to March 22, 23, 24 and April 16, 2010. The respondent then made a second request to reschedule which the Tribunal has also allowed. While the applicant may be frustrated by these delays in scheduling they are delays the Tribunal has allowed under its procedures for scheduling hearings. In my view, the applicant has not shown why her Application should be dealt with on an urgent basis and given priority for Tribunal resources over other matters. Accordingly, the Request to Expedite is denied.