J.M. v. St. Joseph’s Health Centre, 2011 HRTO 1178

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

J. M.

Applicant

-and-

St. Joseph’s Health Centre and Steven Rhee

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: June 17, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1178

Indexed as: J.M. v. St. Joseph’s Health Centre

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on June 2, 2009, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in services. The Application is presently scheduled for hearing on September 29 and 30, 2011. This Interim Decision addresses a request by the applicant for an earlier hearing date and provides directions regarding any request for rescheduling of those dates.

2On June 2, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Rescheduled Hearing setting September 29 and 30, 2011, as hearing dates. These dates replaced earlier dates that had been set for September 15 and 16, 2011. The parties were consulted regarding the new dates and the dates were set based on the information provided.

3On June 6, 2011, the applicant sent a letter to the Tribunal, which among other things, requests that the hearing dates be rescheduled to earlier dates. In support of her request, the applicant relies on what she asserts is delay in the case and changes in her personal circumstances. The applicant states that she has been served with an eviction notice which will require that she move by July 1, 2011. The applicant states that she is not able to find alternative housing because of her budget and the fact that she is on Ontario Disability Support Program benefits and is having difficulty finding a job. The applicant states that the next few months will be particularly stressful for her. The applicant therefore requests that the Tribunal hold the hearing sooner than the date recently provided (asking the Tribunal to keep in mind that her eviction is for July 1, 2011, which I interpret as her wanting to have the hearing by that date).

4The respondent Dr. Rhee has filed a response to the applicant’s letter indicating that although he is sympathetic to her circumstances, he cannot consent to the request. Dr. Rhee states that the Tribunal should be given the opportunity to address the issue of whether or not the Application is statute-barred against him (an issue which is pending) and rescheduling may leave Dr. Rhee with inadequate time to prepare and find mutually agreeable alternative dates.

5No response has been received from St. Joseph’s Health Centre.

6While the applicant has not framed her request as a request that the Application be expedited (or completed the applicable form), I treat her request as such. In considering a request to expedite, the Tribunal has held that, for a request 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: see Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 53, at para. 9).

7Having reviewed the materials filed by the parties, I do not find that this is an appropriate case to expedite at this time.

8The Application is scheduled to be heard in a little over three months, on dates that were set on consultation with the parties. Without questioning the sincerity of and the difficulties presented by the changed circumstances relied on by the applicant, I do not find that they are truly urgent so as to warrant giving this Application priority over other applications in the intervening three-month period, particularly given that the applicant appears to be seeking a date in the month of June. Further, while I acknowledge the applicant’s belief that the next few months will be “particularly stressful” for her, in general a claim of stress in the absence of further particulars and/or supporting documentation does not constitute an indication of urgency which would result in the Tribunal giving an Application priority over other discrimination cases.

9Finally, I have considered the respondent Rhee’s objection as another factor militating against expediting the Application.

10For all of the foregoing reasons, based on the material filed, the request is denied.

11I note that in asking that the hearing dates be moved up to this month, the applicant has also stated that it is reasonable for the Tribunal to “accommodate” her request. In the event that the applicant is seeking accommodation under the Code, she may wish to consider the Tribunals’ Policy on Accessibility and Accommodation, which sets out the Tribunal’s procedures for accommodation. Further, I note that the applicant also appears to have suggested in an email on June 14, 2011, that she is unable to confirm her availability to the hearing dates set on June 2, 2011. In the event the applicant is seeking that the dates be rescheduled, I refer the applicant to the Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediation, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments, should she be unable to attend on the scheduled dates. The Tribunal’s Policies and Practice Directions are available on its website at ww.hrto.ca.