Funk v. Century 21 First Canadian, 2012 HRTO 126

B E T W E E N:

Shelley Funk Applicant

and -

Century 21 First Canadian, Merrill Edmunds and Barbara Edmunds Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: January 17, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 126 Indexed as: Funk v. Century 21 First Canadian

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) in which the personal respondents ask that the Application be dismissed against them. For the reasons that follow, the Request is denied.

2In this Application, filed under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), the applicant alleges discrimination in housing based on sex, family status, and marital status. In essence, she alleges that she attempted to lease a property through a real estate agent employed by the corporate respondent. She states that the real estate agent told her that the landlords (the personal respondents) would not rent the property to her because she is a single mother.

3The corporate respondent has filed a Response denying the allegations of discrimination. The personal respondents have filed a separate Response, also denying the allegations of discrimination.

4The personal respondents have also delivered to the parties and filed with the Tribunal correspondence in which they ask the Tribunal to dismiss the Application against them. In their Request for dismissal, the personal respondents present a version of the facts that is different from that presented by the applicant. They deny any discrimination and state that they did not rent the property to the applicant because her offer to rent included conditions that the property did not meet.

5The personal respondents state that, in light of the facts they have presented, the Tribunal should dismiss the Application against them. Neither the applicant nor the corporate respondent have filed submissions in response to the personal respondents’ Request.

DECISION

6It is not possible for the Tribunal to determine the personal respondents’ Request in advance of a hearing on the merits of the Application. The Request relates to the very heart of the issues raised in the Application, the determination of which would require the Tribunal to assess two different versions of the facts, make credibility determinations, and make findings of fact. The Tribunal cannot resolve factual differences or make credibility assessments without first hearing the evidence of the parties.

7For this reason, the Request to dismiss the Application against the personal respondents is denied.

8The applicant and the corporate respondent have indicated that they wish to participate in a mediation. The personal respondents have not indicated whether they are amenable to mediation.

9Within one week of this Interim Decision, the personal respondents must advise the Tribunal and the other parties in writing whether they wish to participate in a mediation. If the personal respondents do not wish to mediate, the matter will be scheduled for a one-day hearing on the merits.

10I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 17^th day of January, 2012.

”Signed by”

Michelle Flaherty Vice-chair