HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Christina Jahn
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin
Indexed as: Jahn v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Christina Jahn, Applicant
Self-represented
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Respondent
Jordan Joseph, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed October 15, 2012 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services, goods and facilities on the basis of sex and disability. This Interim Decision addresses a Request to Expedite filed by the applicant.
BACKGROUND
2The Application arises out of the applicant’s incarceration in a correctional facility. In particular, the applicant alleges that she was discriminated against and experienced brutal and humiliating treatment as a result of her mental disabilities and sex while in the Ontario corrections system.
3At the time she filed the Application, the applicant requested that the Application be “expediently processed” due to her medical condition, which was described as stage four terminal cancer.
4On November 15, 2012, the applicant followed up this request with a Request for Expedite (the Request). In the Request, the applicant states that due to her advanced medical illness and the possibility of medical appointments or surgery being booked at any given time, as well as mobility and pain issues that vary day by day she would not want any additional delays in the Tribunal’s process (which I presume refers to the extension given to the respondent for filing a Response). The applicant states that due to serious health problems, both medical and psychiatric, she requests an expedition of the Tribunal process. The applicant states that if the Request is denied the harm that would result is the physical deterioration and possibility of not being able to attend court because of the progression of her illness. As for the changes sought, the applicant states that the estimated one year process is reasonable but any additional interruptions or postponements should “be opposed”.
5On November 24, 2012, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant stating that the Tribunal was unable to process the Request because of the absence of a declaration signed by a person with direct first-hand knowledge detailing the facts supporting the Request.
6On January 15, 2013, the applicant filed additional supporting material which I find confirms the seriousness of her medical conditions, as she initially submitted. I note in particular that her family physician stated that her medical condition is “precarious and worsening”.
7The respondent has filed a Response to the Request indicating that it takes no position on the Request but will abide by the decision of the Tribunal. The respondent reiterates its consent to mediation.
DECISION
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 applicant 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 the health issues identified by the applicant are circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the Application.
11The respondent has agreed to mediation, but the applicant has not. The applicant will be contacted to ascertain her interest in mediation and if she consents, mediation will be scheduled on an expedited basis.
12Absent consent to mediation, a conference call will be scheduled with the parties on an expedited basis to hear submissions on the further processing of this Application including the setting of early hearing dates and abridged timelines for filing material.
Dated at Toronto, this 30th day of January, 2013.
“signed by”
Kathleen Martin
Vice-chair