Johnson v. Thorold Municipal Non-Profit Housing Corporation, 2010 HRTO 787

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Kenneth Johnson Applicant

-and-

Thorold Municipal Non-Profit Housing Corporation Respondent

Reconsideration Decision

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: April 9, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 787 Indexed as: Johnson v. Thorold Municipal Non-Profit Housing Corporation

Reasons for Decision

1The Application was filed on September 30, 2009, pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The applicant alleges discrimination on the basis of disability and age in the context of housing and goods, facilities and services. The applicant also alleges reprisal or threat of reprisal.

2The Tribunal earlier issued a Decision, 2010 HRTO 685, dismissing the Application on the basis that its substance had been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.

3In rendering that Decision, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had not filed a Reply and that the time for doing so had elapsed. The Tribunal has since determined that, in fact, the time for filing the Reply had not elapsed.

4Rule 26.9 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure states that the Tribunal may reconsider a decision on its own initiative where it considers it advisable and appropriate to do so.

5In my view, in the circumstances, it is appropriate to reconsider the Decision to give the applicant an opportunity to make submissions in respect of the dismissal issue.

6Section 43(2)1 of the Code provides that, where an application is within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, the Tribunal must provide parties with an opportunity to make oral submissions before making a final determination.

Request to Expedite

7In light of the decision to reconsider the dismissal of the Application, it becomes necessary for me to address the applicant's Request to Expedite Proceedings ("Request"), which was filed on March 18, 2010.

8In support of his Request, the applicant cites ill health and the fact that he was to be evicted by the respondent on March 31, 2010.

9The respondent does not, at this time, take a position regarding the Request. It states that the Tribunal should first address the respondent's Request to dismiss the Application.

10The respondent had an opportunity to make submissions regarding the Request and it elected not to do so. In the circumstances, it is just, fair and expeditious for the Tribunal to determine the Request based on the materials already filed with the Tribunal.

11Based on these materials, there seems to be a dispute between the parties regarding the reason for the eviction. The respondent states that the applicant has been repeatedly tardy in making rent payments. The applicant alleges reprisal or threat of reprisal. He states that he has paid his rent in accordance with a process agreed to by the parties and that, if the payments were late, it is because the respondent did not regularly pick up its mail.

12A Request to Expedite Proceedings must describe 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. In Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 53, at paragraph 9, the Tribunal stated:

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.

13The Tribunal's Rule 21.2 provides as follows:

A Request to Expedite an Application under Rule 21.1 must describe: a) any urgent circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the application; b) the harm that would result if the request is denied; and c) whether the other parties consent to the request.

14While the applicant has ongoing and serious health concerns (which he described in the Application), it is not clear to me that his health is an urgent circumstance which warrants dealing with the Application on an expedited basis.

15I am, however, satisfied that the eviction gives rise to some urgency and that the applicant could be further harmed if the Request is denied. In the circumstances, I think it is appropriate to expedite the proceedings, but only as they relate to the preliminary issue of whether the Application should be dismissed. If necessary, once that issue is addressed, the Tribunal will determine whether the proceeding as a whole should be expedited.

Next Steps

16In light of my conclusions at paragraph 15, the following abridged timeframes will apply:

a. Within three days of this Reconsideration, the applicant will file a letter with the Tribunal and provide a copy to the respondent advising whether he wishes to make oral or written submissions on the dismissal issue;

b. If the applicant elects to make oral submissions, the Registrar will schedule a one-hour telephone conference hearing on the earliest date possible; and

c. If the applicant elects to make written submissions, within five days of the date of this Reconsideration he must file these submissions with the Tribunal and provide a copy to the respondent.

17If, within three days of this Interim Decision, the applicant fails to advise the Tribunal of his desire to make further submissions, the Tribunal may decide the dismissal issue based on the materials already filed.

18I am not seized of this matter.