Smith v. Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, 2010 HRTO 978

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Brian Smith Applicant

-and-

Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: May 4, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 978 Indexed as: Smith v. Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite the Application. The applicant is a teacher and alleges that his employer has removed him from the classroom on the basis that he is incapable of teaching. He indicates that he has not taught for ten (10) months and is now without income. He seeks reinstatement and wishes to return to work prior to the end of this school year or in time for the next school year in September 2010. With regard to the harm that would result if the expedite request is denied, he cites financial pressures and his fear that the longer he is away from teaching, the harder it will be to successfully transition back to work. He states that his employer’s treatment of him has caused psychological harm requiring medical treatment.

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.

5Having reviewed the materials, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence. The type of circumstances described in the Request to Expedite, such as ongoing financial pressures and psychological effects of the alleged discrimination, are not uncommon 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. The Tribunal cannot conclude that, should the applicant be successful in his Application, any requested (and arguably appropriate) remedy will be moot or unavailable.

6Further it appears that the majority of events described in the Application, in particular the removal of the applicant from the classroom in September 2009 which is said by the applicant to breach the Code, occurred seven (7) months prior to the filing of the Application. The delay in filing the Application and Request to Expedite weighs against giving it priority for Tribunal resources through an expedited proceeding: Kwan v. Hospital for Sick Children, 2009 HRTO 621.

7The Request to Expedite is denied.

8I am not seized.