Marie Mukoka v. Z Realty Group Limited, Brenda Adams and Paula Letts, 2010 HRTO 1088

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Marie Mukoka

Applicant

-and-

Z Realty Group Limited, Brenda Adams and Paula Letts

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: May 14, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1088

Indexed as: Mukoka v. Z Realty Group

1This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s Request for Order to add two individual respondents to her Application. The applicant filed her Application on March 24, 2009, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging harassment in housing by the respondent Z Realty Group Limited (“Z Group”).

2In the body of her Application, the applicant requested the names of the building manager and the tenant involved in the altercation with the applicant for the purpose of adding them as individual respondents to her Application. Counsel for Z Group provided those names and on July 3, 2009, the applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) asking to amend her Application to add Brenda Adams (the building manager) and Paula Letts (another tenant in the building) as respondents.

3The Z Group responded to the RFOP in which it indicated that it consented to the addition of the proposed parties. Counsel for the Z Group indicated, however, that it was accepting service of the RFOP on behalf of itself and the building manager, but not the other tenant, Ms Letts. It took several additional months for the RFOP to be properly served on Ms Letts.

4After being served, Ms Letts attempted to respond to the issue. Ms Letts seemed to have difficulty filling out the appropriate form in the appropriate fashion, and it was only in April 2010 that she filed a Response to the RFOP that was somewhat responsive to the issue of whether she should be added a respondent to the proceeding. Ms Letts objected to being added as she was of the view that “it is a frivolous matter and it should be dropped.”

5The test for adding respondents has been articulated at paragraph 12 in the decision Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513.

When determining a request to add a respondent, the Tribunal should consider the following three questions:

(1) Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?

(2) If the proposed respondent is an individual and an organization is also named, is there a compelling reason to include him or her as a respondent?

(3) Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?

6The applicant’s RFOP states that the “individual conduct” of the two proposed respondents is a “central issue” in the Application, and that if they are found to have infringed the applicant’s rights it would be appropriate to award remedies against them specifically. Moreover, the tenant is not an employee of the Z Group which is not liable for her conduct.

7With respect to the tenant, who has since moved from the building, I agree that she is not under the control of the organization and that the allegations, if proven, could support a finding against her personally that she violated the Code. Although it is less clear that there is a compelling reason to include property manager as a respondent to the proceeding, her counsel has consented to her addition as a party. Moreover, in the event that the allegations against the property manager are proven, the Tribunal may wish to order a remedy against her in her personal capacity (such as participating in training).

8Accordingly, I order that Brenda Adams and Paula Letts be added as respondents to this Application and the style of cause be amended to include their names.

9I am not seized of this matter.