Babineau v. Ontario (Municipal Affairs and Housing), 2009 HRTO 1404

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Guy Babineau Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, The Landlord and Tenant Board and Elizabeth Beckett Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: September 4, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1404 Indexed as: Babineau v. Ontario (Municipal Affairs and Housing)

1This Application was received on December 30, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2In a prior Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 1301, the Tribunal added the Landlord and Tenant Board (the "LTB") as a respondent to this Application. The applicant has since requested the addition of two legal counsels for the respondents on the basis that their position on behalf of the respondents contributed to the alleged discrimination.

Analysis

3The Tribunal has held that where alleged facts, if proven, could lead to a finding that the proposed respondent infringed the applicant's rights under the Code; and the proposed respondent would not suffer real and substantial prejudice if added as a party to the proceeding, the proposed respondent may be added as a party to the proceeding, at the Tribunal's discretion: Greenhorn v. 621509 Ontario Inc. (Belleville Dodge Chrysler Jeep), 2006 HRTO 22. While Greenhorn was decided under the old Code, the principles remain applicable in this case.

4The applicable provision of the new Code relating to parties is section 36:

36. The parties to an application under section 34 or 35 are the following:

37. In the case of an application under subsection 34 (1), the person who made the application.

38. In the case of an application under subsection 34 (5), the person on behalf of whom the application is made.

39. In the case of an application under section 35, the Commission.

40. Any person against whom an order is sought in the application.

41. Any other person or the Commission, if they are added as a party by the Tribunal.

5Under s. 36(5), the Tribunal continues to have a broad discretion to add parties to an application.

6In my view, legal counsels representing their clients do not become party to the alleged discrimination of the client by defending their interests. Accordingly, I find no basis upon which to exercise my discretion to add the proposed parties.