Rowena Lariviere v. EIWO Canadian Management Ltd., 2012 HRTO 1585

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Rowena Lariviere Applicant

-and-

EIWO Canadian Management Ltd. Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin Date: August 17, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1585 Indexed as: Lariviere v. EIWO Canadian Management Ltd.

1This Application was filed on August 3, 2012 pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code") alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of sex. The applicant alleges that she was terminated from her position as a cleaner in the respondent's apartment buildings when she told the respondent that she was pregnant.

2The applicant filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings at the same time that she filed the Application. In describing the urgent circumstances in support of the Request, the applicant states that she is going into her sixth month of pregnancy and the regular process times will not be sufficient as she needs to make life changes sooner rather than later and her personal well-being and that of her unborn child need to have "closure". The applicant cites the loss of housing (which was part of her employment) in four weeks as the harm that will result if the Request is denied. The applicant states that the Application needs to be dealt with in a timely fashion to avoid harm and undue hardship to her and her unborn child.

3The respondent has yet to file a Response to the Application (the deadline is September 14, 2012) but has filed a Response to the Request to Expedite. The respondent does not take a position regarding the Request other than to state that it is agreeable if the Application can be heard between September 5 and 28, 2012. The respondent specifically indicates it agrees to mediation.

4The 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.

5In 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. The Tribunal went on to state that the financial consequences for a dismissed employee may constitute such a justification in some circumstances particularly if there is reason to believe that these will lead to other significant consequences which may not be easily remedied.

6Based on the limited submissions made, I am not prepared to grant the Request. While the respondents' consent may be a factor, ultimately the Tribunal must still determine whether the circumstances relied on to support the Request are truly urgent so as to warrant giving this Application priority over other applications in the Tribunal's process. The applicant has not provided details about the consequences of the financial impact of her loss of employment in her request. In addition, without questioning the sincerity of the applicant's concerns about the loss of her position and housing and her current pregnancy, she has not provided details that would enable me to conclude that these circumstances would cause significant consequences if the matter is not expedited.

7In the circumstances, the Request to Expedite is therefore denied.

8As the parties have indicated a willingness to participate in mediation, and the respondent has specifically identified that it is available in September, the Tribunal will schedule the earliest date available to the Tribunal in the period September 17, 2012, to September 28, 2012, to accommodate the time frame for filing a Response.

9Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the parties wish to consider an earlier date for mediation, they can consult with each other and contact the Tribunal with any dates in the period August 21, 2012, to September 14, 2012, where both parties are available. Subject to the Tribunal's availability, a date within this period will be scheduled.

Order

10The applicant's Request is denied.

11The respondent will file its Response by September 14, 2012.

12The parties are directed to confer with each other and provide the Tribunal with mutually available dates for mediation in the timeframes indicated above within one week of the date of this decision.

13I am not seized of this matter.