Jonathan Wiesenthal v. Law School Admission Council, Inc., 2010 HRTO 954

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Jonathan Wiesenthal Applicant

-and-

Law School Admission Council, Inc. Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: David A. Wright Date: April 30, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 954 Indexed as: Wiesenthal v. Law School Admission Council

Reasons for Decision

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on April 7, 2010 alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The applicant alleges that his request for disability-related accommodation when writing the Law School Admissions Test (the "LSAT") on June 7, 2010 has been denied. He has filed a Request to Expedite the Application, stating that he will be unable to write the LSAT on equal footing with non-disabled students and may be unable to fully demonstrate his suitability for admission to law school.

2The respondent has filed a Response to Request to Expedite (Form 15). The respondent opposes the expedition of this Application on the basis that the applicant has failed to provide a reason to support his claim that his matter must be resolved before the June 7, 2010 writing of the LSAT. The respondent notes that the applicant may still seek reconsideration of its decision with respect to accommodation up to May 4, 2010 and that, in any event, it is too late for the scores from the June 2010 LSAT to be considered as part of any application for admission to any Canadian law school in the 2010-2011 academic year. The respondent advises that the applicant originally registered to take the December 2009 LSAT, without seeking accommodations but withdrew his registration.

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.

6Having reviewed the materials, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal's jurisprudence. While there may be good reason for the applicant wanting to write the June 2010 LSAT, he has not provided an explanation with regard to the urgency in resolving the issues in his application prior to this particular test date. It therefore does not appear that unless this Application is expedited, the Tribunal will be unable to provide a remedy to the applicant if his Application is ultimately successful.

7I need not decide whether an applicant must exhaust all internal appeals of a decision prior to filing a Request to Expedite with the Tribunal or make findings with regard to whether the applicant's decision not to write an earlier LSAT constitutes a delay in filing which would weigh against expediting the proceeding; Kwan v. Hospital for Sick Children, 2009 HRTO 621. I cannot conclude that the assertion that the applicant will be harmed by not being able to write the June 2010 LSAT on equal footing with other students, without any explanation as to the urgency of writing this particular LSAT, warrants giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other matters. The Request to Expedite is denied.

8I am not seized.