Rosita Pandya v. Radisson Plaza Mississauga, Nick Kocchar and Harpreet Sethi, 2010 HRTO 844

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Rosita Pandya Applicant

-and-

Radisson Plaza Mississauga, Nick Kocchar and Harpreet Sethi Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: April 16, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 844 Indexed as: Pandya v. Radisson Plaza Mississauga

Reasons for Decision

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on January 14, 2010, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, disability and record of offences contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). On March 17, 2010, the applicant filed a Request to Expedite the Application. In describing the urgent circumstances in support of her Request to Expedite, the applicant states that she is financially stressed as a result of mortgage payments and the fact that her daughter is getting married soon and she needs money to help her as well. The applicant did not provide an answer to the question on the Request to Expedite Form "Describe the harm that would result if this Request is denied."

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.

4Having reviewed the materials, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal's jurisprudence. The circumstances described in the Request to Expedite relate to potential financial hardship. The Tribunal has noted that purely financial losses are common in applications alleging 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.

5The Request to Expedite is denied.

6Although the applicant checked the box on the Application Form alleging discrimination on the basis of record of offences, she answers "no" to the questions "Do you believe you were discriminated against because of a record of offences under a federal law (Criminal Code offence)?" and "Do you believe you were harassed or discriminated against because of a record of offences under provincial law (such as the Highway Traffic Act)?". The Tribunal has held that the ground of record of offences applies only where there has been a conviction for an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or an offence in respect of any provincial enactment: see for example Gravino v. P.R. Maintenance, 2009 HRTO 516; de Pelham v. Mytrak Health Systems, 2009 HRTO 172). It therefore appears that this ground of discrimination does not apply. It shall be removed from her Application unless within ten days of the date of this Interim Decision the applicant provides submissions to the Tribunal, copied to the respondents, as to why the ground of record of offences applies, in which case the Tribunal will determine the issue or provide further directions.

7I am not seized.