T.A. v. Grace MacInnis Cooperative Inc., 2012 HRTO 1496

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

T.A. Applicant

-and-

Grace MacInnis Cooperative Inc. Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin Date: August 1, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1496 Indexed as: T. A. v. Grace MacInnis Cooperative Inc.

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to housing on various grounds including family status. This Interim Decision addresses a Request to Intervene filed by an individual who is identified as the applicant's "wife" in the Application. Given that the individual only identified herself by name, I use the applicant's description of her in the course of the decision below rather than potentially undermining the order that initials would be used to identify the applicant.

BACKGROUND

2The Application arises out of the applicant's membership in and subsequent eviction from the respondent housing cooperative (the "Co-op"). The applicant resided in the Co-op with his wife and children from October 2005 until, it appears, sometime in 2010. At that time, the applicant and his family were evicted following a proceeding in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

3The Application was referred for summary hearing. After the summary hearing was held but before the issuance of the interim decision, the applicant's wife fled a Request to Intervene. In her Request, the applicant's wife states that she wants to address the issue of "discrimination in housing – eviction and harassment". The applicant's wife states that she is one of the victims of the eviction and the main victim of harassment and seeks to intervene on the basis of a "full party to the application".

4The applicant's wife delivered the Request to the applicant and respondent but neither party filed a response within the time frame permitted in the Rules.

5By Interim Decision dated June 7, 2012, I dismissed the Application on the grounds of ethnic origin, creed, sex (pregnancy) and reprisal and determined that the Application would continue in respect of the allegation that the applicant was discriminated against on the basis of his family status in relation to his eviction by the Co-op. I also issued directions regarding the continuation of the hearing including directing that the respondent file a response to the Request to Intervene; and a further hearing be scheduled to determine whether or not the Application should be dismissed because of either section 45.1 and/or section 34 (11) because there had been a civil proceeding resulting in the applicant's eviction.

6On July 20, 2012, the respondent filed a response opposing the Request to Intervene. Among other things, the respondent states that this Application was filed in 2009 and that based on the material filed, it would appear that the applicant's wife is trying to add herself as an applicant rather than as intervenor to circumvent the applicable limitation period.

DECISION

7Under Rule 11.1 of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may allow a person or organization to intervene in any case at any time on such terms as the Tribunal may determine.

8In determining whether or not to grant intervention, the Tribunal has considered a number of factors including whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the determination of rights of the parties, whether the proposed intervenor has a significant interest in the issue on which intervention is sought and whether the proposed intervenor is likely to provide assistance to the Tribunal that would not otherwise be provided (see, for example, Carasco v. University of Windsor 2011 HRTO 630).

9While the Tribunal has a broad discretion to grant intervention, I do not find that this is an appropriate case to grant intervention to the applicant's wife.

10The applicant's wife seeks intervention because she is a victim of eviction and the main victim of harassment relying on the materials previously filed by the applicant, an affidavit (which she has provided but which contains no content) and a case note from the Children's Aid Society of Toronto from March 24, 2009 which is not legible. The applicant seeks to become a "full party to the application".

11I agree with the respondent that it would appear the applicant's wife is seeking to become another applicant as opposed to an intervenor given her description that she is a victim and her request to be a "full party". This is not a basis on which to grant intervention. If the applicant's wife wishes to file her own application she may do so although given the delay in filing, the application may be untimely.

12The applicant's wife has not identified any assistance that she will provide the Tribunal which cannot be provided by the applicant either through his own evidence or other witnesses, including the applicant's wife, should she be able to give relevant evidence related to the merits of the existing Application if and when there is a hearing on the merits.

13The Request to Intervene is denied.