HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kevin Liu

Applicant

-and-

Board of Directors of Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 541

Respondent

AND B E T W E E N:

Kevin Liu

Applicant

-and-

Del Property Management Inc.

Respondent

AND B E T W E E N:

Judith X.H. Zhang

Applicant

-and-

Board of Directors of Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 541

Respondent

AND B E T W E E N:

Judith X.H. Zhang

Applicant

-and-

Del Property Management Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: December 8, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 373

Indexed as: Liu v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 541

[1] These are four Applications filed November 17, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The respondents have not yet filed their Responses (Form B) which are due 35 days after they received the Applications.

[2] The Applications are briefly summarized as follows:

T-0446-08: The applicant, Kevin Liu, alleges that the respondent, the Board of Directors of MTCC #541, has discriminated against him in the areas of accommodation, services goods and facilities on the basis of family status.

T-0447-08: The applicant, Kevin Liu, alleges that the respondent, Del Property Management Inc., has discriminated against him in the areas of accommodation, services goods and facilities on the basis of family status.

T-0448-08: The applicant, Judith X.H. Zhang, alleges that the respondent, the Board of Directors of MTCC #541, has discriminated against her in the areas of accommodation, services goods and facilities on the basis of family status.

T-0449-08: The applicant, Judith X.H. Zhang, alleges that the respondent, Del Property Management Inc., has discriminated against her in the areas of accommodation, services goods and facilities on the basis of family status.

3The Tribunal’s Rules for Applications under section 53(3) of the Code are to be interpreted and applied in a way that ensures a fair, just and highly expeditious process for the determination of these applications.

4These Applications involve identical facts and raise similar legal issues. Accordingly, I find, pursuant to Rules 1.1, 4.1 and 4.3 (m), that in order to ensure a fair, just and highly expeditious process for their resolution, these applications should proceed together for the purposes of mediation.

5In order to assist in scheduling the mediation expeditiously, all parties are requested to provide, within 10 days from the date of this decision, a list of available dates for mediation in March 2009.

[6] I am not seized of these matters.

Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of December, 2008.