Istvan Resz v. Lakeshore Artists Co-operative, 2008 HRTO 94

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Istvan Resz Applicant

-and-

Lakeshore Artists Co-operative Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart Date: September 22, 2008 Citation: 2008 HRTO 94 Indexed as: Resz v. Lakeshore Artists Co-operative

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 655 Bay Street, 14th Floor Toronto, ON M7A 2A3 Phone (416) 314-8419 / Fax (416) 314-8743 / Toll free 1-866-598-0322 TTY (416) 314-2379 / (toll free) 1-800-424-1168 E-mail hrto.registrar-transition@ontario.ca Website www.hrto.ca

1This is an Application dated August 12, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The Application was completed by September 3, 2008 and on that date the Tribunal scheduled a mediation for October 27, 2008, advising the parties that the date would only be changed for important reasons.

3The respondents have not yet filed their response (Form B) which is due 35 days after they received the applicant’s Application (Form A). However, the respondent did advise the Tribunal that they do not consent to participate in the scheduled mediation.

4The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Applications under Section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code (Section 53(3) Rules) and the Tribunal’s Guide to Section 53(3) Applications, contemplate that the first step in a section 53(3) application is a mediation. As indicated in the Tribunal’s Guide, if mediation is unsuccessful or if the parties are not willing to discuss resolution, the mediator will utilize the allotted time to ensure that the parties are ready to proceed to the case resolution conference by assisting the parties to complete a case management checklist (Rule 8.4) before the Application proceeds to a case resolution conference. The case management checklist includes such things as:

• Identification of witnesses
• Identification of documents required, if any
• Canvassing dates for a case resolution conference
• Where possible, identifying and narrowing the facts and issues in dispute

5Where a respondent refuses to attend the mediation, it may impede the efficient processing of the Application, in which case the Tribunal may, in its discretion, issue a case management direction (Rule 5.14) directing that the respondent attend at the Tribunal for case management purposes as identified above. In some cases, such as in this Tribunal’s decisions in Donovan v. Mountainview Residence Inc 2008 HRTO 74, and Cudmore v. Cap Products Ltd. of Canada, Tom Costello and Brian Kiss 2008 HRTO 77, in light of the specific circumstances of those cases, the Tribunal may decide that the parties’ attendance is not necessary and may direct that the matter proceed to the next steps under the Rules.

6However, in this case, I am satisfied that the efficient processing of this application requires the attendance of the parties in person for case management purposes. This case involves complex issues pertaining to the application of the duty to accommodate to residential accommodation in a housing co-operative which is publicly funded. In order for the case resolution conference to proceed efficiently and effectively, the Tribunal will need to ensure that the parties, some of which are unrepresented, have a good understanding of the legal issues involved in this case and what evidence may be required. In my discretion, I believe that this can better be facilitated at an in-person meeting than simply directing the parties to proceed with the next steps under the Rules.

7In the circumstances of this case, I order that the parties attend a case management meeting on October 27, 2008, the date originally scheduled for mediation, however the time for this meeting is hereby adjusted to start at 1:30 p.m. and to end by 4:30 p.m.