Spooner v. Northumberland County Community and Social Service, 2010 HRTO 928

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Robert Spooner Applicant

-and-

Northumberland County Community and Social Service Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright Date: April 28, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 928 Indexed as: Spooner v. Northumberland County Community and Social Service

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on April 15, 2010, alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant states that as a result of his disability, he suffers from a hypersensitivity to noise. He alleges that his requests over the last two years to be relocated to a less noisy unit as a disability-related accommodation have been denied by the respondent. The applicant has filed a Request to Expedite his Application, since a unit that he alleges would meet his disability-related needs has become available in the building. He states that if the Application is not expedited, the unit will be rented to another person in May 2010 and he will miss the opportunity to be accommodated. He states that he will continue to have to take medication to alleviate his anxiety, continue to be unable to rest and that his quality of life will be severely hampered.

2The respondent has filed a Response to Request to Expedite (Form 15). The respondent opposes expediting the Application, since the specific unit described in the Request is already rented for May 1, 2010.

3The 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.

4In 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.

5In 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.

6In these circumstances, however, an expedited proceeding could not assist in making the requested remedy available. The unit to which the applicant seeks a transfer, as the basis for the expedite request, has already been rented and will be occupied on May 1, 2010. It is impossible for the Application to be heard and decided before that date. Expediting the Application, therefore, will not affect the availability of the remedy. Accordingly, the Request to Expedite must be denied.

7However, as I note that the parties have indicated an interest in mediation, and it is reasonable to assume that other units may become available, the Tribunal will, in light of these very particular circumstances, schedule a mediation on the earliest possible date which is mutually agreeable to the parties and available to the Tribunal after the Response has been filed or the time for filing has passed.

8I am not seized.