minicounsel

Morgan v. University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2010 HRTO 874

April 22, 2010

Morgan v. University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2010 HRTO 874

Case Summary

The applicant, a former university student, filed an Application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and sought to expedite the proceedings. She cited her age, concerns about future job prospects, and the need to repay student loans as urgent circumstances. The Tribunal denied the Request to Expedite, finding that the applicant's concerns about job prospects were speculative and that financial concerns regarding student loans do not constitute urgent circumstances warranting priority over other matters.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angela Morgan

Applicant

-and-

University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Mike McKeown, Ken Finney, Jessica Clarke and Richard Hird

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: April 22, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 874

Indexed as: Morgan v. University of Ontario Institute of Technology

[1] The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities on the basis of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). It appears that the applicant is a former student at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT) and, among other things, seeks to be permitted to continue her education at UOIT. The applicant has filed a Request to Expedite the Application. In describing the urgent circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the Application if the Request to Expedite is not granted, she cites her age and her concern that the longer she is prevented from pursuing her education, the less likely she will be able to find work upon graduation. In describing the harm that would result if the Request is denied she states that she will need to pursue a larger remedy in order to repay outstanding student loans.

[2] The 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.

[3] In 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.

[4] Having reviewed the materials, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence. Without questioning the sincerity or seriousness of the applicant’s concerns regarding her job prospects, I find that the circumstances that she describes are 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.

[5] With regard to the concern that if the request is denied, she will need to pursue a higher remedy, the Tribunal has consistently held that these types of financial concerns are not urgent circumstances which warrant giving an Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters. Further, if the applicant is successful in her Application, the Tribunal has the power to order appropriate compensation.

[6] I find that the 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.

[7] The applicant has listed “Financial Aid Office – Front desk area personnel” as a respondent to her Application. The Tribunal cannot process an Application against unspecified individuals. Accordingly, the Application will not proceed against this respondent at this time. The applicant may deliver and file a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) seeking an order that the organizational respondent provide the full names of the individuals she wishes to include as respondents to his Application.

[8] I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 22^nd day of April, 2010.

“Signed By”

Sherry Liang

Vice-chair