HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
John Meriano
Applicant
-and-
Benteler Automotive Canada Corp.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson
Indexed as: Meriano v. Benteler Automotive Canada Corp.
APPEARANCES
John Meriano, Applicant
Jean-Alexandre De Bousquet, Counsel
Benteler Automotive Canada Corp., Respondent
Jessica Young, Counsel
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and age. This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to expedite the hearing of this matter.
2The 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 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.
3In 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.
4In Ebrahimi v. Durham District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1062, the Tribunal noted that another basis for expediting an application may be where a requested (and arguably appropriate) remedy will be moot, or unavailable, without expediting an application.
5In this case, the applicant submitted that the respondent’s Brampton plant is closing in June 2014 and that the Brampton plant is the respondent’s only facility. Consequently, the applicant submitted that the respondent, a German company, will no longer have operations or assets in Canada and, as a result, any order the Tribunal may make against the respondent will be unenforceable after the closure. The applicant therefore requested that the Tribunal schedule the hearing in this matter and render judgement by the end of May 2014.
6In response, the respondent acknowledged that its Brampton plant is scheduled to close at the end of June 2014 and submitted that the applicant has been aware that the plant is closing since March 2013. The respondent stated that it did not oppose the applicant’s request, but submitted that the timeline proposed by the applicant is unrealistic, as the parties have not yet exchanged relevant documents or witness statements.
Decision
7There is no dispute that the respondent’s Brampton plant is closing and there does not appear to be any dispute that the respondent will no longer operate in Canada or have assets in Canada following the closure. In these circumstances and given the respondent does not oppose the applicant’s request, the request to expedite is granted.
ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS
8The Tribunal directs as follows:
The Request for an expedited hearing is granted. The Registrar will schedule a one-day hearing in Toronto, at the earliest opportunity between the date of this Interim Decision and May 31, 2014.
The parties will exchange any documents, witness lists and witness statements upon which they intend to rely at the hearing no later than seven days before the date of the hearing.
9I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of April, 2014.
“Signed by”
Douglas Sanderson
Vice-chair