D’Aguiar v. Durham Condominium Corporation No. 136, 2009 HRTO 1259

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Millicent D’Aguiar

Applicant

-and-

Durham Condominium Corporation No. 136 – Board of Directors

Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Nancy Heath

Applicant

-and-

Durham Condominium Corporation No. 136 – Board of Directors

Respondent

interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: August 13, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1259

Indexed as: D’Aguiar v. Durham Condominium Corporation No. 136

1These are two Applications alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicants have filed a Request to Expedite the Applications, citing ongoing and serious health and safety concerns as a result of renovations to the building in which they live, managed by the respondent Condominium Corporation. The respondent has filed a Response to the Request to Expedite in which it states that the number and complexity of the issues raised are not conducive to a proper adjudication on an expedited basis. The respondent has not yet filed a Response to the Applications and its deadline for doing so has not yet passed.

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.

4Having reviewed the materials filed by the parties, I am of the view that the health and safety concerns raised by the applicants, which were not referred to or denied by the respondents constitute urgent circumstances within the meaning of the Tribunal’s jurisprudence. The applicants cite an ongoing risk of serious bodily injury as a result of the renovations, which they say constitutes discrimination and a failure to accommodate their disabilities. In the circumstances, the Request to Expedite is granted. As all parties have indicated a willingness to enter into mediation, the Tribunal will schedule a mediation on the earliest possible date.

5One week in advance of the mediation date, the respondent will serve the other parties and file with the Tribunal a mediation brief outlining its position, for the purposes of mediation, on the issues raised and the remedies sought by the applicants. The respondent will be required to file a full Response in accordance with the Rules by the date already set by the Registrar. If the matter does not settle at mediation, the Tribunal may give further directions following that time regarding the next steps in the expedited proceedings.

6I am not seized.