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. Peel (Regional Municipality)
APPEARANCES
Nazaneine Farokshadfar, Applicant
Self-represented
The Regional Municipality of Peel, Respondent
Gurjit Brar, Counsel
Introduction
1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s second request for access to the respondent’s specialized transit services, as an interim remedy from the Tribunal.
2In her Application, the applicant alleges that she was discriminated against by the respondent 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 service, TransHelp, on three occasions between October 2013 and January 2014.
3After the alleged incidents of discrimination, the respondent denied TransHelp services to the applicant because she did 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.
4By Interim Decision dated September 4, 2014 (2014 HRTO 1309), I dismissed the applicant’s first request for specialized transit services because she was seeking a remedy that was unrelated to the allegations in her Application. The allegations in the Application relate to the service-dog issue: they do not relate to a denial of service.
request for interim remedy
5On October 29, 2014, the applicant brought a second request for specialized transit services. The applicant requests that she be provided with TransHelp services immediately because she has a cast on her left foot. The applicant provided a doctor’s note stating the applicant is unable to walk or use public transportation while she is in a cast for six weeks.
6The respondent opposes the request for interim remedy on the basis that it is substantially similar to the first request in that the applicant is again seeking a remedy that is unrelated to the allegations in the Application. The respondent submits the applicant has not demonstrated that she is unable to use regular public transit, nor has she shown that the interim remedy is necessary to ensure a complete, appropriate and effective remedy at the end of the hearing in this matter.
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 refusal of the respondent to allow the applicant’s service dog on TransHelp on three occasions between October 2013 and January 2014. They do not relate to a denial of service to the applicant.
10The applicant is using the Request for Interim Remedy process to obtain a service from the respondent that is unrelated to the allegations in her Application. The applicant is attempting to short-circuit the normal process to get this service. There is no information before the Tribunal that the applicant applied for specialized transit after her foot was put in a cast, nor is there information that she was denied. It is therefore not surprising that the denial of services allegation is not before the Tribunal.
11It is important to note that the applicant will be in a cast for six weeks, starting October 24, 2014. As of the date of this decision, she has been in a cast for five weeks. In all likelihood, by the time she applies to TransHelp, she will no longer require its services.
12On the basis of the Application that is before the Tribunal, there is no right to an interim remedy of specialized transit services because it is completely unrelated to the Application filed. It therefore cannot be found that it is necessary to ensure a complete, appropriate, and effective remedy at the end of a hearing. For this reason, the second request for interim remedy is denied.
13This matter will now proceed to mediation on January 20, 2015, as scheduled.
Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of December, 2014.
“Signed by”
Jennifer Scott
Vice-chair