HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Simon Torr
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Paramedic Services (Formerly Toronto Emergency Medical Services), City of Toronto, Russ Olynyk, Janice Baine, and
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 416
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Torr v. Toronto Paramedic Services
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Simon Torr, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV 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. As this Application has not yet been delivered to the respondents, this Interim Decision refers solely to the allegations made by the applicant.
2The applicant has filed an Application in which he alleges that the respondents have failed to accommodate his disability. He has been on a leave of absence since April 2015 and the applicant is currently in receipt of sick benefits. The applicant filed a Request for Interim Remedy seeking to be reinstated into his position, with certain conditions, until the Tribunal finally determines the Application. In light of my decision below, it is not necessary to seek submissions from the respondents.
Decision
3The Request is denied.
4Rule 23 provides as follows:
23.1 An Applicant may request that the Tribunal order an interim remedy in an Application. A Request for an Interim Remedy must be made in Form 16. If the Request is made at the same time the Application is filed, it need not be delivered to the other parties. If it is made at a later stage, it must be delivered to the other parties and filed with the Tribunal.
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.
5The granting of an interim remedy is an extraordinary step. It involves requiring the respondents to take certain actions prior to a hearing on the merits of the Application and before any violation of the Code has been proven.
6In TA v. 60 Montclair, 2009 HRTO 369 at para. 23, the Tribunal held that the fundamental consideration in determining whether to award an interim remedy is:
whether an interim remedy is necessary to facilitate and ensure the Tribunal is able to award a complete, appropriate and effective remedy at the end of a hearing, should a violation of the Code be found.
7The Tribunal in TA v. 60 Montclair, above, 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. See also Kwan v. Hospital for Sick Children, 2009 HRTO 621.
8I am not satisfied that the applicant has met the significant onus of establishing that his Request for Interim Remedy meets the criteria in Rule 23.2 and that it is necessary to further the remedial objects of the Code.
9In support for his Request, the applicant argues that he is stressed by the fact that he is not currently at work, has to incur some transportation costs and pay for a medical certificate every few weeks to support his continued benefits and that he has suffered a financial loss because these benefits are less than his usual income. The applicant is also concerned that his sick benefits will be disentitled after August 2015. However, if the Tribunal subsequently finds that the respondents violated the Code, the Tribunal has the power to direct the respondents to accommodate and reinstate the applicant and compensate him for his financial losses. In these circumstances, the applicant has failed to establish that the balance of harm or convenience favours granting his Request.
10Further, in my view at that is stage it is not possible to say that the case has merit and the issues raised in the Application require that the Tribunal hear evidence on the merits of the Application prior to imposing any of the remedies sought by the applicant. It would not further the objectives of the Code if the Tribunal were to grant requests to accommodate in advance of a merits hearing, especially in circumstances in which an applicant can be made whole in the event that the respondents are found to have violated the Code.
11The Request for Interim Remedy is therefore denied.
12I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of July, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair