Philip Matthews v. Medallion Corporation and Susan Drakes, 2010 HRTO 209

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Philip Matthews

Applicant

-and-

Medallion Corporation and Susan Drakes

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: January 28, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 209

Indexed as: Matthews v. Medallion Corporation

INTRODUCTION

1This Interim Decision relates to the applicant’s request to consolidate his Applications against the respondents in Tribunal files 2009-02090-I and 2009-03860-I.

THE APPLICATIONS

2The applicant filed the Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“the Code”), in File 2009-02090-I on April 27, 2009. In that Application, the applicant alleges that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of disability in respect of housing. In essence, the applicant alleges that the respondents breached their duty to accommodate him to the point of undue hardship by refusing to rent him an apartment because of his “bad” credit history, which he contends is a direct result of his disability. As a result, he submits that he was required to have his mother enter into a tenancy agreement with the corporate respondent in his stead, and he resides in the unit as an “occupant”.

3The respondents submit that the applicant never applied for tenancy himself and never disclosed the existence of or any need to accommodate his disability to the respondents.

4In Tribunal file 2009-03860-I, filed on October 14, 2009, the applicant alleges that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of disability and reprisal in respect of housing. The applicant alleges that the corporate respondent refused to cash rent cheques which he provided for October, November and December 2009 for the rental unit in which he resides and that that constituted a reprisal within the meaning of the Code and discrimination on the basis of disability. The applicant also alleges that the respondent refused to respond to a request to assign his mother’s tenancy to him as he submits is required by section 95 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, as amended.

5The respondents filed their Response to the Application on December 23, 2009, and submit that they did not refuse to cash the cheques provided by the applicant for October 2009 onwards and deny that they breached the Code by not responding to a request to assign the tenancy or otherwise.

Request to Consolidate

6A one-day hearing in respect of the Application in 2009-02090-I is currently scheduled for February 22, 2010.

7On October 14, 2009, and prior to his Application in 2009-03860-I being delivered to the respondents by the Tribunal, the applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceedings, requesting that the Applications in Tribunal files 2009-02090-I and 2009-03860-I be consolidated. The respondents filed a Response to the Request on October 20, 2009, in which they indicated that they could not respond to the Request at that time, as they had not received the Application in 2009-03860-I.

8Subsequently, on December 23, 2009, the respondents filed their Response to the Application in 2009-03860-I. The Response in that file was extremely similar and in many ways identical to the Response filed by the respondents in Tribunal file 2009-02090-I, and the parties are the same.

9Without predetermining the issue, it appears to the Tribunal that there is significant overlap in the facts in the applications in 2009-2090-I and 2009-03860-I. It also appears to the Tribunal that the hearing in respect of both matters could be completed in one day and that consolidation of the Applications would not prolong or delay the hearing in File 2009-02090-I. The parties are the same in both Applications. In all of the circumstances, it may very well be that the most fair, just and expeditious way to proceed is to consolidate the Applications

10However, because the respondents filed their Response to the Request for consolidation prior to receiving the Application in 2009-03860-I, the Tribunal wishes to give the respondents a specific opportunity to identify any circumstances which suggest that consolidation would not be appropriate.

11Accordingly, the Tribunal directs the respondents to file written submissions with the Tribunal, copied to the applicant, within seven (7) days of the date of this Interim Decision responding to the applicant’s request for consolidation and indicating whether they object to having the Applications consolidated. Alternatively, if the respondents wish to consent to the consolidation, having now responded to the second Application, they may write to the Tribunal, with a copy to the applicant, indicating such consent.

12The Tribunal will make a final determination regarding the consolidation of the Applications after the respondents have had an opportunity to file their submissions on this issue, in accordance with the above.

13The Tribunal will address any issues regarding the timelines for the exchange and filing of will-say statements and documents in respect of File 2009-03860-I in due course, if and when the Applications are consolidated, including whether the February 22, 2010 hearing ought to be adjourned in the circumstances.

14The deadline for filing documents and witness statements in respect of 2009-02090-I was 45 days before the hearing, which was January 8, 2010. If any party has not taken the necessary steps required by Rules 16 and 17 in respect of File 2009-02090-I, he, she or it should do so immediately.

15The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure are available on our website, www.hrto.ca.

16I am not seized.