Castellanos v. Guise Street Housing Co-operative, 2010 HRTO 25

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jaime Castellanos Applicant

-and-

Guise Street Housing Co-operative Inc., Dave Smart, John Turford, Debbie Schrader, Andrew Hoekstra, Wayne Stewart, Alan Skinner, Judy Skinner and Dale Unsworth Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte Date: January 6, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 25 Indexed as: Castellanos v. Guise Street Housing Co-operative

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on December 23, 2008. The applicant alleges discrimination in housing based on race, place of origin, citizenship, family status, association with a person identified by a ground under the Code and reprisal. This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Order during a Proceeding (RFOP) brought by the applicant to add a respondent to the Application.

2The applicant seeks to add David Pipe as a respondent. The applicant alleges that Mr. Pipe has acted in an unreasonable manner on many occasions towards the applicant, that Mr. Pipe is a close friend of the respondent Hoekstra and that Mr. Pipe has attacked the applicant physically and has shown negativism towards him. The applicant alleges that Mr. Pipe’s actions were done in order to "prevail with the discriminatory and racially motivated actions" against himself.

3In the Response to the RFOP, the respondents state that the applicant has made nothing more than bald allegations against Mr. Pipe, that the applicant has not alleged that Mr. Pipe has acted contrary to the Code or in a discriminatory manner, and that adding Mr. Pipe will only delay matters in a proceeding which is scheduled to be heard by the Tribunal on March 2, 3 and 4, 2010.

4In Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board 2009 HRTO 1174 at paragraph 12, the Tribunal set out the test for the addition of a personal respondent:

(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?

The application of the first stage involves considering whether there are allegations made in the Application or amendments sought to it that could lead to a finding that the Code was infringed. At the second stage, the Tribunal applies the Persaud factors, which focus in most cases on whether there is an organizational respondent named that can effectively remedy the infringement and the centrality of the allegations against the proposed respondent. At the third stage, the Tribunal may consider a variety of factors, including the effects on the hearing process of adding the proposed respondent, the reasons the proposed respondent was not named in the Application or Response, prejudice to the other parties, and the need for and likely effectiveness of a remedial order against the proposed respondent if the application is allowed.

5In this case, the applicant has not identified Mr. Pipe’s relationship with the corporate respondent. I find that there is insufficient information in the RFOP to connect Mr. Pipe to the factual situation giving rise to this Application. The applicant alleges that Mr. Pipe’s conduct towards the applicant is part of the discrimination that he has suffered while occupying a unit at the corporate respondent, but he does not identify Mr. Pipe’s role in the situation.

6I therefore find that the first aspect of the Smyth test is not satisfied in the circumstances. The applicant’s RFOP is denied.

7I am not seized of this matter.