Sloan v. Just Energy Corp., 2011 HRTO 1181

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Stacie Sloan

Applicant

-and-

Just Energy Corp.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: June 17, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1181

Indexed as: Sloan v. Just Energy Corp.

1The applicant filed an Application on May 25, 2011, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in employment. In particular, the applicant alleges that her employment was terminated after she advised her manager that she was pregnant.

2The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings with her Application. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request to Expedite.

3The applicant submits that she is pregnant and has a history of miscarriage. She also submits that she has taken a job that requires her to be on her feet all day, and has been recently prescribed anti-depressant medication. With respect to the harm that would result if the Request is denied, the applicant indicates the potential harm is miscarriage. The applicant also submits that she may not qualify for Employment Insurance maternity benefits, as a result of the termination of her employment, due to reduced hours. She submits that the financial harm may be significant if the Application is not heard before her due date, and that she will best be able to attend a hearing before the end of August, which is approximately one month before her due date. She requests a hearing prior to the end of August, if possible.

4On June 8, 2011, the applicant provided a signed declaration in support of her Request to Expedite. In her declaration, the applicant explains that she resides with her spouse and two children, who are twelve and nineteen months old. The availability of her spouse’s work is seasonal. She states that she has had to take a labour intensive job, where she is on her feet, to be able to assist her spouse in making ends meet.

5The applicant also states in her declaration that she has a medical history of miscarriages and that she was informed by her physician that the miscarriages were likely due to stress. She also states that she has been advised by her physician that a recent ultrasound identified two risk factors that may require her to stop working early in her current pregnancy.

6The applicant also submits that, as a result of the termination of her employment with the respondent, she and her spouse have fallen behind on rent, utility and car insurance payments. She states that, by Order of the Landlord and Tenant Board, their lease has been terminated, effective July 31, 2011, and they have been given a payment plan to address arrears. Lastly, the applicant reiterates her concern that she will probably have to stop working before she can accumulate the required hours to qualify for Employment Insurance maternity benefits.

7On June 15, 2011, the respondent provided a Response to the Request to Expedite, indicating that it would be “happy and willing to work towards expediting the proceeding.”

8The 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 that 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.

9In 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.

10Having regard to all of the circumstances, the Request to Expedite is granted. I am satisfied that, when considered together, the health issues identified by the applicant, particularly in relation to her pregnancy, and her current financial difficulties, are circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the Application.

11The Tribunal notes that both parties have agreed to mediation. Accordingly, mediation will be scheduled on an expedited basis.

12The time limits for filing the respondent’s Response to the Application and the applicant’s Reply, if any, are abridged. The respondent is directed to file its Response (Form 2), and deliver it to the applicant, no later than July 4, 2011. The applicant is directed to file her Reply, if any, and deliver it to the respondent, no later than July 11, 2011. The Tribunal will schedule mediation as soon as possible thereafter in July.

13If this Application is not resolved at mediation, the Tribunal may issue further directions.

14I am not seized of this matter.