HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N: James Shuparski

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto

Respondent

AND B E T W E E N:

James Shuparski

Applicant

-and-

Page + Steele Incorporated, Architects

Respondent

AND B E T W E E N:

James Shuparski

Applicant

-and-

Simerra Property Management

Respondent

AND B E T W E E N:

James Shuparski

Applicant

-and-

Edilcan Development Corporation

Respondent

AND B E T W E E N:

James Shuparski

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1952

Respondent

AND B E T W E E N:

James Shuparski

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha

Date: November 21, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 291

Indexed as: Shuparski v. Toronto (City)

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

655 Bay Street, 14th Floor

Toronto ON M7A 2A3

Phone (416) 326-1312 / 1-866-598-0322 / Fax (416) 326-2199 / Toll Free1-866-355-6099

TTY (416) 314-2379 / 1-800-424-1168

E-mail hrto.registrar@ontario.ca

Website www.hrto.ca

INTRODUCTION

1The applicant filed six separate Applications under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The facts alleged in the Applications are identical, and relate to the alleged accessibility deficiencies in the condominium building in which the applicant resides. He seeks damages for discrimination against each of the respondents, as well as an order for specific retrofits to the building.

2All of the respondents have filed Responses. Some of the respondents are unaware that parallel Applications have been filed, and express confusion as to why they have been solely named. The applicant has filed a Reply only in respect of the Response filed by the City of Toronto. The applicant, as well as five of the six respondents, indicate that they agree to attempt mediation.

3Two of the respondents have asked for early dismissal of the Applications against them. This decision deals with the requests for early dismissal and also addresses how best to proceed in respect of the multiple Applications.

DECISION

Early Dismissal

4Edilcan Development Corporation, (“Edilcan”), the respondent in File 2008-00324-I, and Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1952, (“Condominium Corporation No. 1952”), the respondent in File 2008-00325-I, are represented by the same counsel. They each request the Tribunal to dismiss the Applications against them on the basis that the applicant filed complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) based on the same facts.

5In support of their request, Edilcan and Condominium Corporation No. 1952 each attach a copy of the Tribunal Application filed against the other. At paragraph 4 of the Edilcan and at paragraph 5 of the Condominium Corporation No. 1952 Response, the respondents state: “…the Applicant has brought a separate complaint to this Tribunal, based upon the same factual allegations and evidence…” [emphasis added].

6Neither respondent has provided the Tribunal with a copy of a complaint filed with the Commission.

7It appears Edilcan and Condominium Corporation No. 1952 have confused filing complaints with the Commission with filing multiple applications with the Tribunal. This misunderstanding may arise out of a lack of familiarity with the changes to the Code which came into effect on June 30, 2008. While it is true that multiplicity of proceedings in different forums (such as parallel or previous complaints with the Commission or actions in court) may give rise to a jurisdictional issue, multiplicity of applications before this Tribunal only raises the question of how best to process the different applications.

8The request to dismiss is refused.

Multiple Applications

9In order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may consolidate or hear applications together. This is expressly provided for in Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

10All of the parties, but for Simerra Property Management, the respondent in File 2008-00323-I, have expressed a willingness to attempt mediation with the Tribunal. It appears that proceeding together for the purposes of mediation will facilitate the expeditious resolution of the issues. If the parties are unable to resolve the issues at mediation, the Tribunal will seek submissions on how to proceed at the hearing and, specifically, whether to consolidate or hear the Applications together.

ORDER

11For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal makes the following order:

(a) The requests for early dismissal, raised in File 2008-00324-I and File 2008-00325-I, are refused;

(b) The Registrar shall send each of the respondents a copy of the Application, Response and Reply (if any) filed in each of the other five applications, along with this decision;

(c) The Registrar shall schedule a joint mediation and will be in contact with the parties shortly.

12I am not seized of these matters.