LaBelle v. Rich Products of Canada Limited, 2010 HRTO 755

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shirley LaBelle

Applicant

-and-

Rich Products of Canada Limited, Rich Products Corporation, Scott VeRost, Patricia Boychuck, Jim Stokes, Mario Stranges, Norma Kouri, Rick Smith, Christine Anzik, Kevin Blough, Dan Kearns, Randy Dugan

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: April 7, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 755

Indexed as: LaBelle v. Rich Products of Canada

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant has filed a Request to Expedite the Application, alleging that her employer is stating that if things do not improve in the plant, it will pull out of Canada and citing the hostile situation with her employer. She states that the harm that will result if the Request to Expedite is denied is “abuse” that “will only do further harm to me, mentally and physically.”

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.

3In 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.

4In Ebrahimi v. Durham District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1062, the Tribunal noted that another basis for expediting an application may be where a requested (and arguably appropriate) remedy will be moot, or unavailable, without expediting an application.

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 respondent. Having reviewed the applicant’s materials, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence.

6The Request to Expedite is supported by a number of assertions that appear to be speculative or lacking in sufficient detail to justify the expediting of the Application. The applicant cites “abuse” that will do further harm to her physically and mentally, but does not explain how this will occur or provide details of the harm beyond the bald assertion of the same. Further, it is apparent that the applicant’s statement that her employer will pull out of Canada if “things don’t improve” is speculative. Other than this assertion, there is no further evidence or information that would suggest that if the Application is not expedited and is ultimately successful, a remedy will become unavailable or moot.

7The applicant has not identified truly urgent circumstances that might prevent the “fair and just resolution” of her Application on the merits if the proceedings are not expedited. The Request to Expedite is denied.

8I am not seized.