Thomas Jakobek v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1626 and Deaconwood Property Management Inc., 2010 HRTO 1180

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Thomas Jakobek Applicant

-and-

Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1626 and Deaconwood Property Management Inc. Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: May 26, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1180 Indexed as: Jakobek v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1626

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19 as amended (the “Code”), on June 3, 2009 alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in housing.

2The respondents did not file Responses. An Interim Decision dated December 8, 2009, 2009 HRTO 2105, was issued directing the respondents file a Response within 10 days and warning of consequences for failing to do so.

3On December 8, 2009, a representative of the respondent Deaconwood Property Management Inc. (“the representative”) sent an email to the Tribunal advising that a joint Response had been filed for both respondents. In response to a December 9, 2008 email from the Tribunal, the representative advised that the Response was sent by mail.

4On February 1, 2010 the representative was emailed to advise the Tribunal had no record of receiving the Response and requesting that it be resent by email by February 3, 2010. To date, the Tribunal has not received the Response.

5A further Interim Decision was issued, 2010 HRTO 684 dated March 29, 2010, (“the Interim Decision”), directing the respondents to file their joint or separate Responses within 5 days along with an explanation for their failure to file a Response and failure to respond to the Tribunal’s February 1, 2010 email. The respondents were warned that, if they failed to respond as directed, the Tribunal would deem them respondents to have accepted all of the allegations in the Application and to have waived their right to further notice or participation in the proceeding.

6The representative responded by email stating, “I am uncertain why you are not receiving my mail, or email with attachments, which is why I am not attaching anything to this one”.

7Subsequent to the receipt of that email, another individual, Robin Panchan, wrote the Tribunal on behalf of a new property manager, Larlyn Property Management (“Larlyn”). Larlyn requested an update on the status of the Application and asked for forgiveness from the Tribunal for a lack of Response from the respondent Deaconwood.

8In the circumstances the Tribunal asks the respondents to clarify the relationship between the respondent Condominium Corporation and the respondent Deaconwood, whether Panchan is now the contact person for the respondent Condominium Corporation, and to identify a contact person for the respondent Deaconwood. If a Response was prepared by the representative on behalf of both respondents, it must be sent to the Tribunal immediately together with any documentation to show whether and when that Response was originally sent to the Tribunal. If the Response cannot be located the respondents are to advise the Tribunal of the respondents’ efforts to locate the Response. The respondents ate to provide this information to the Tribunal within 5 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

9Upon receipt of this information, the Tribunal may issue further directions as it considers appropriate.

10I am not seized of this matter.