Messmer v. Piliwood Investments, 2009 HRTO 2061

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Michael Messmer

Applicant

-and-

Piliwood Investments Ltd and Raymond Bubel

Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Michael Messmer

Applicant

-and-

Kimbel Management Ltd.

Respondent

AND B E T W E E N:

Ivan Plumridge

Applicant

-and-

Piliwood Investments Ltd. and Raymond Bubel

Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Ivan Plumridge

Applicant

-and-

Kimbel Management Ltd.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: November 30, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 2061 Indexed as: Messmer v. Piliwood Investments

1These are four Applications filed June 8, 2009 and perfected on August 18, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2This Interim Decision deals with a Request for an Order During Proceedings delivered and filed by the applicants requesting the addition of individual respondents John Cox and James Boucher. The applicants have also requested that David Williamson and Reg Dupuis be removed as respondents to these Applications. The two latter named individuals have never been served with these Applications and accordingly are not respondents to these Applications at this stage.

3The four human rights complaints underlying these Applications allege discrimination and harassment by the respondents on the basis of marital status and sexual orientation in the social area of accommodation. The underlying complaints are largely identical and make allegations of Code prohibited mistreatment of the applicants from March 2004 to June 2005. The complaints appear to have been filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission in November 2005.

4The applicants state that John Cox and James Boucher engaged in acts of discrimination "as early as 2005" and there are several references in the applicants' submission about proposed respondent Cox's recent harassment and discrimination. There are no specific allegations against Mr. Boucher who is said to be the current superintendent of the building in which the applicants reside.

5The parties are reminded that a section 53(5) application will generally be limited to the subject matter of the complaint made to the Commission and the Tribunal will only exercise its discretion to allow amendments where it is necessary to ensure to the fair, just and expeditious disposition of the application (See Rule 12.3). In this regard, I note that allegations beyond the time frame set out in the complaint will normally not be considered to be included in a section 53(5) application.

6In respect of the Request to add the new respondents identified above, I note that neither appear to be referred to in any of the complaints underlying these Applications. Neither individual was identified as a respondent when the human rights complaints were filed in November 2005.

7I am not satisfied that it is necessary to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of these Applications that either Mr. Cox or Mr. Boucher be added as individual respondents.

8I am not seized of these matters.