S.R. v. Drewlo Holdings, 2011 HRTO 2003

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

S.R.

Applicant

-and-

Drewlo Holdings

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

S.R. on behalf of A.F.

Applicant

-and-

Drewlo Holdings

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

S.R. on behalf of E.R.

Applicant

-and-

Drewlo Holdings

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: November 4, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 2003 Indexed as: S.R. v. Drewlo Holdings

1This interim decision deals with three Applications filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The first Application (in file number 2011-9963-I) was filed by S.R. pursuant to s. 34(1) of the Code. The second Application (in file number 2011-10171-I) was filed by S.R. pursuant to s. 34(5) of the Code on behalf of A.F. The third application (in file number 2011-10170-I) was filed by S.R. pursuant to s. 34(1) on behalf of E.R. who is a dependent minor of S.R. and A.F.

2As one of the individuals on whose behalf an application has been brought is a minor, the applicants’ names have all been anonymized pursuant to Rule 3.11.1.

3The Applications allege discrimination in housing on the basis of race, colour, and disability. All three Applications arise out of the same incident. In essence, the applicant alleges that when he requested assistance to enter to the pool area, a representative of the respondent responded with discriminatory comments.

4The Applications have not been served on the Respondent.

5Along with each Application, the applicants filed a Request to Expedite the Proceedings. In support of this Request, the applicants argue that the matters should be expedited to avoid the “risk to prolonging interference of care and treatment of disabilities of minor adults.”

6Further, with each Application, the applicants have filed a Request for Interim Remedy in which they seek a change of residential location and a meeting with a decision-maker. In support of the Requests to Expedite, the applicants cite a risk of continued harm and harassment. They seek an expeditious resolution to avoid this allegedly continuing harm.

7This Interim Decision addresses all of the Requests filed in the three Applications. In rendering this Interim Decision, however, I make no finding as to whether or not the three applications should be consolidated going forward.

8The Requests have not been served on the respondent. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to receive submissions from the respondent on the Requests. For the reasons that follow, the applicants’ Requests are denied.

REQUEST TO EXPEDITE

9The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide for applications to be dealt with in an expedited manner in urgent circumstances. Rule 21.1 states that an applicant may ask the Tribunal to 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.

10In 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.

11Although a risk of ongoing discrimination is certainly a concern, it does not create circumstances that warrant treating this matter more expeditiously than other applications filed with the Tribunal.

12The applicant has not raised any issues that constitute urgent circumstances within the meaning of the Tribunal’s jurisprudence. Accordingly, the Request to Expedite is denied.

REQUEST FOR INTERIM REMEDY

13Granting an interim remedy is an extraordinary step. It involves requiring the respondent to take certain actions prior to a hearing on the merits of the Application.

14The conditions for awarding an interim remedy are set out as follows in Rule 23.2:

The Tribunal may grant an interim remedy where it is satisfied that:

a) the Application appears to have merit;

b) the balance of harm or convenience favours granting the interim remedy requested; and,

c) it is just and appropriate in the circumstances to do so.

15In TA v. 60 Montclair, 2009 HRTO 369, at para. 23, the Tribunal held that the fundamental consideration in determining whether to award an interim remedy is:

whether an interim remedy is necessary to facilitate and ensure the Tribunal is able to award a complete, appropriate and effective remedy at the end of a hearing, should a violation of the Code be found.

16The Tribunal in TA v. Montclair, supra, also noted that an applicant seeking an interim remedy will have a significant onus to meet to demonstrate that the Request meets the three elements in Rule 23.2 and is necessary to further the remedial objects of the Code. See also Kwan v. Hospital for Sick Children, 2009 HRTO 621.

17I find that it is not appropriate to grant the Request for Interim Remedy in the circumstances. At this early stage of the proceeding, it is difficult for me to assess whether or not the Applications appear to have merit. However, even if (following a hearing) the Application were found to have merit, it is not clear to me that the interim remedy requested by the applicant would be awarded. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the balance of harm or convenience favours granting the interm remedy. Nor am I satisfied that it is just or appropriate to do so in the circumstances.

DECISION

18The Requests to Expedite these Applications are denied.

19The Requests for Interim Remedies are denied.

20The Tribunal will deliver the Applications to the Respondent along with a copy of this Decision.