HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
A.B.
Applicant
-and-
Havcare Investments Inc. and M. Linton
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: A.B. v. Havcare Investments
1This is an Application filed on March 7, 2011 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination on the basis of age in housing by the individual respondent M. Linton who has not filed a Response. Specifically, in the Application the applicant, who is a 17-year-old minor who has withdrawn from parental control, alleges that M. Linton denied her housing on the basis of age.
2On June 28, 2011 the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding (the "Request") to add Havcare Investments Inc. ("Havcare" or the "proposed corporate respondent") as a corporate respondent and attached an amended Application. Though the applicant confirmed that this Request was delivered to both M. Linton and Havcare neither party filed any submissions opposing the Request or otherwise contacted the Tribunal.
3In the Request, the applicant states that the reason that the proposed corporate respondent should be added as a respondent is that subsequent to filing the Application the applicant discovered that M. Linton is not the owner of the property but is in fact only a manager. The applicant asserts that Havcare is the owner of the property.
4In Smyth v. Toronto Police Services, 2009 HRTO 1513, the Tribunal found that 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?
5In the present case, it appears that it would be appropriate to add the proposed corporate respondent as a party to the proceedings. The Application makes allegations that could support a finding that Havcare violated the Code. The Tribunal also notes that no unfairness or prejudice arises in this case since it is still early in the proceedings. The applicant's Request for Order is therefore granted.
Order
6The Tribunal Orders the following:
a. Havcare Investments Inc. is added as a respondent and the style of cause is amended accordingly; and
b. The respondents shall be provided with copies of the amended Application and are directed to file Responses to the Application (in Form 2) not later than 35 days after a copy of the Application is sent.
7I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 12th day of August, 2011.
"Signed by"
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair