Beckford v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2010 HRTO 845

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Candis Beckford

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Vanier Centre for Women and Jackie Stroble

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: April 19, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 845

Indexed as: Beckford v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on March 23, 2010 alleging discrimination in employment and services on the basis of race, colour and disability and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The applicant is incarcerated at the respondent Vanier Centre for Women (the "Centre"). She has filed a Request to Expedite the Application, stating that the issues for which the Application is being filed will no longer be relevant once she is released from the Centre at the end of May 2010. She alleges that the ongoing discrimination and reprisals that she is experiencing are harmful to her mental health and the opportunities and benefits that she is allegedly being denied mean a lot to a person who is in jail. She cites a fear that if her Request to Expedite is denied, she will experience greater discrimination during the remaining period of her incarceration.

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

6I do not doubt the sincerity of the applicant's concerns about her circumstances while she remains in jail. However, the remedies that she is seeking in her Application are monetary compensation, a letter of apology and the posting of "Code cards" in the common areas of the jail. If the applicant is successful in her Application, the Tribunal could consider and order these remedies after her period of incarceration ends. I am therefore unable to conclude that a requested remedy will be moot, or unavailable, without expediting the Application. Further, with respect to the applicant's fear that she will experience adverse treatment as a result of her Request to Expedite being denied, whether or not a Request to Expedite is granted, the Code prohibits reprisal against individuals for claiming or enforcing their rights under the Code or for taking part in a human rights proceeding. It is therefore not clear how an expedited proceeding will better alleviate the risk of adverse treatment during the remaining period of the applicant's incarceration.

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

8The applicant has listed a correctional officer and a manager at the Centre as respondents to her Application. With regard to the correctional officer she has provided a badge number but no name. She has provided a surname but no first name for the manager. The applicant has been advised that she must obtain full names in order that the Application can be delivered to and proceed against these individuals. Accordingly, the Application will not proceed against these individuals at this time. The applicant may deliver and file a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) seeking an order that the relevant organizational respondent provide the full names of the individuals she wishes to include as individual respondents to his Application.

9I am not seized.