Jones v. Goldhawk Accounting and Tax Services, 2010 HRTO 743

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Melissa Jones Applicant

-and-

Goldhawk Accounting and Tax Services Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price Date: April 1, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 743 Indexed as: Jones v. Goldhawk Accounting and Tax Services

1The applicant requests that the Tribunal expedite the hearing of this Application pursuant to Rule 21 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (the “Rules”).

2Rule 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 urgent circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the Application and the harm that may result if the request is denied. Where the Tribunal decides to expedite a proceeding, it may do so by abridging time limits, scheduling early dates, or taking any other steps it deems appropriate.

3The Application filed on February 26, 2010 pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of sex in respect of employment.

4The applicant was on maternity leave with her first child and pregnant with her second child when the respondent advised her that her employment had been terminated because of mistakes discovered while the applicant was on maternity leave. The applicant alleges that the respondent terminated her employment because it assumed that she was going to get pregnant again soon after the completion of her first maternity leave or because it had heard that the applicant was in fact pregnant again.

5In support of her Request to Expedite, the applicant states that she wishes to have her Application resolved before her pregnancy advances to the point where it is too physically difficult and/or emotionally stressful for her to participate in proceedings before the Tribunal. She states that such emotional stress and physical strain may harm her and her unborn child.

6The respondent consents to the applicant’s request that this proceeding be expedited, providing that any proceedings are scheduled after April 30, 2010.

DECISION

7When deciding whether to expedite an application, the Tribunal is really determining whether there are urgent circumstances which warrant dealing with the Application on a priority basis ahead of other Applications.

8The applicant cites the emotional stress and the physical difficulty of attending proceedings at the Tribunal as the reasons for her Request to expedite. However, many applicants to the Tribunal experience physical difficulties and emotional stress in relation to the events giving rise to their applications or participation in the Tribunal’s processes. If the Tribunal were to expedite every application where such circumstances existed, expediting an application would cease to have any meaning. It would cease to be the exception and become the rule.

9I am unable to conclude that the circumstances in this case are so particularly urgent as to distinguish this Application from other cases before the Tribunal, such that it ought to be dealt with on an expedited basis.

10I am not seized of this matter.