T.A. v. 60 Montclair Ltd., 2010 HRTO 1003

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

T.A.

Applicant

-and-

60 Montclair Ltd., The Montclair Co-ownership Inc., 2131404 Ontario Inc., Hanya Kizemchuk, Harold Fensterer and Maximilien Ghalioungui

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: May 5, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1003

Indexed as: T.A. v. 60 Montclair

1This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code") alleging discrimination in accommodation on the grounds of disability and receipt of public assistance.

2The Application arises out of a failed attempt by the applicant to purchase a co-ownership apartment unit in a building located at 60 Montclair Avenue in Toronto (the "building"). The unit in question, unit 505, was owned by the respondent 60 Montclair Ltd. and had been listed for sale in the spring of 2008. The applicant alleges that the respondent refused to sell unit 505 to her because of her disability and/or because she was in receipt of public assistance. The applicant also alleges that the building and unit were unique in a number of ways, and were particularly well suited to her disability-related needs. The unit was ultimately taken off the market, renovated and sold to another purchaser. In a previous Interim Decision, TA v 60 Montclair, 2009 HRTO 369, the Tribunal refused the applicant's request for interim relief but granted a request to have her name anonymized in any decision.

3This Interim Decision relates to the identification of a number of persons who could be potentially affected by the applicant's claim for a remedy in this case. The Request is made on behalf of 60 Montclair Limited, The Montclair Co-ownership Inc. and Hanya Kizemchuk (the "moving respondents) who seek to identify as affected persons, approximately 25 independent unit owners at 60 Monclair ("the building") and a number of unidentified tenants of those owners. The Request is supported by the respondents Herold Fensterer and 2131404 Ontario Inc., and opposed by the applicant.

4I agree with the moving respondents that the remedies, as requested by the applicant, could potentially affect every unit owner in the building and those tenants with an expectation or agreement of a right of first refusal on the sale of a unit. However, the remedies requested by the applicant do not, necessarily, define the scope of the hearing. Even if the applicant is successful on the merits, the Tribunal will have to consider whether the remedies proposed by her are appropriate, given the remedial purpose of the Code.

5In my view, it would unduly complicate this Application to name the unit owners and tenants as affected persons at this stage in the hearing process. The additional owners and tenants are not alleged to have breached the Code and cannot assist the Tribunal in determining the issue of liability.

6The Tribunal has a mandate to bring applications to a fair, just and expeditious resolution. If the applicant is successful at the conclusion of the hearing on the merits, the Tribunal will revisit this request before determining the appropriate remedy.