HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Nazaneine Farokshadfar
Applicant
-and-
The Regional Municipality of Peel
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott
Indexed as: Farokshadfar v. The Regional Municipality of Peel
APPEARANCES
Nazaneine Farokshadfar, Applicant
Self-represented
The Regional Municipality of Peel, Respondent
Ann Dinnert, Counsel
Introduction
1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request for an interim remedy.
2In her application, the applicant alleges that she has been discriminated against on the basis of her disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). She alleges that the respondent refused to allow the applicant to bring her service dog on its specialized transit called TransHelp on three occasions between October 2013 and January 2014.
3On January 31, 2014, the applicant was denied access to TransHelp because it was determined by the respondent that she did not qualify. There are no allegations in the Application relating to disqualifying the applicant from TransHelp.
request for interim remedy
4As an interim remedy, the applicant requests that the respondent provide TransHelp accessible services as quickly as possible.
5The respondent opposes the request for interim remedy on the basis that the applicant does not qualify for TransHelp services because she does not have a physical disability. The respondent states TransHelp provides door-to-door transit for people who are physically unable to board public transit vehicles due to functional mobility problems.
6The respondent submits the interim remedy should be denied because:
The applicant is able to walk without a mobility aid;
The applicant has provided no new medical evidence in support of her alleged inability to walk;
The applicant is no longer a client of WheelTrans in the City of Toronto;
The applicant has been without TransHelp for six months and has been getting around;
The applicant took conventional transit when TransHelp was not convenient and has access to an accessible conventional public transit stop near to her house.
7Rule 23.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, relating to requests for Interim Remedies, states:
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.
23.3 A Request for an Interim Remedy must include:
a) a detailed description of the order sought;
b) one or more declarations signed by persons with direct first-hand knowledge detailing all of the facts upon which the Applicant relies; and,
c) submissions with respect to the merits of the Application, the balance of harm or convenience and why an interim remedy would be just and appropriate in the circumstances, in accordance with the Rule 23.2.
8In TA v. 60 Montclair, 2009 HRTO 369, the Tribunal stated that interim remedies are extraordinary remedies. They are only granted when the applicant is able to demonstrate that such a remedy is necessary to ensure a complete, appropriate, and effective remedy at the end of a hearing. The Tribunal 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.
9Even assuming (without deciding) that the Application has merit, I cannot conclude that the balance of harm or convenience favours awarding the interim remedy requested or that it would be just and appropriate in the circumstances. The allegations set out in the Application relate to the alleged refusal of TransHelp to allow the applicant’s service dog on the transit on three occasions between October 2013 and January 2014. The allegations do not relate to disqualifying the applicant from TransHelp on January 31, 2014, after the service dog incidents. Thus, the applicant is seeking a remedy (access to TransHelp transit) that is unrelated to the allegations in the Application. Put differently, the fact that the applicant may receive a remedy relating to the service dog issue, if she is successful on the Application, does not mean that the respondent would be ordered to provide the applicant with TransHelp transit.
10It therefore cannot be found that the interim remedy is necessary to ensure a complete, appropriate, and effective remedy at the end of a hearing. For this reason, the request for interim remedy is denied.
11The parties have agreed to mediate this matter. The Application will be put in the mediation queue.
Dated at Toronto, this 4^th^ day of September, 2014.
“Signed by”
Jennifer Scott
Vice-chair