A.B. v. Havcare Investments Inc., 2012 HRTO 2161

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

A.B. Applicant

-and-

Havcare Investments Inc. and Marian Linton Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: November 16, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2161 Indexed as: A.B. v. Havcare Investments Inc.

APPEARANCES

A.B., Applicant Megan Evans Maxwell, Counsel

Havcare Investments Inc. and Marian Linton, Respondents Carolyn Krebs/Marian Linton, Self-represented

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 accommodation (housing) because of age. At the time of the allegations in the Application, the applicant was a 17-year-old person who had withdrawn from parental control.

2The hearing in this matter commenced on November 7, 2012. During the hearing, several issues were raised that require the release of this Interim Decision.

Identification of the Representative Representing the Respondents

3Initially, the applicant identified a "M. Linton" as being the only respondent. Later, the applicant sought to add the corporate respondent Havcare Investments Inc. as she discovered that it was the owner of the apartment building at issue and "M. Linton" was the property manager. The applicant's request was granted in an Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 1510 and the corporate respondent was also added as a respondent.

4M. Linton filed a joint Response on behalf of both respondents. The Tribunal issued a Respondent's Response to Notice of Incomplete Response dated November 21, 2011 to M. Linton and directed M. Linton to complete Question 1 of the Response and to provide his/her legal first name. M. Linton supplied "Marian Linton", and she advised that she was representing both respondents.

5Shortly before the hearing, the applicant's then representative emailed the Tribunal enclosing copies of several newspaper articles in which it was written that one of the owners of the corporate respondent was named Carolyn Kreb, who also went by the name of "Mrs. Linton" and "Mrs. Goodman". The applicant's then representative mailed this information to the respondents and submitted that there may be confusion about the identification of the personal respondent.

6At the commencement of the hearing, and in response to the Tribunal asking who was representing the respondents, a female stated that she was representing both respondents. She informed the Tribunal that when she attends proceedings before the Landlord and Tenant Board ("LTB"), she explains her different names to the LTB and they address her as Ms. Krebs. She explained to the Tribunal that her married name is Carolyn Krebs and that she and her husband own the corporate respondent which is located at 500 Dawes Road ("Dawes Road"), the building at issue in the Application. She also stated that she goes by the name of Marian Linton and is the property manager at Dawes Road. She submitted that she could be referred to as Ms. Krebs for the proceeding before the Tribunal. She signed the Tribunal's Appearance Sheet using both names.

7Based upon this information, and because of the differences between the names of Carolyn Krebs and Marian Linton, particularly first names, the Tribunal directs the respondents to produce a copy of the corporate respondent's articles of incorporation showing that Carolyn Krebs is a principal in the business. Further, the Tribunal directs that Ms. Krebs and Ms. Linton provide photo identification for both names in question.

8The information that is ordered to be disclosed is to be delivered to the Tribunal and the applicant's counsel by the respondents within 30 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

Disclosure of Leigh MacDonald's Notes

9Leigh MacDonald, the applicant's former Children's Aid Society ("CAS") youth support worker, is currently testifying in examination-in-chief at the hearing. During her evidence, although she was not looking at them during the hearing, Ms. MacDonald indicated that she reviewed her case notes in preparation for the hearing. As the notes have not been produced to the Tribunal, the Tribunal asked whether they had been disclosed to the respondents and whether the respondents wanted to review the notes.

10Ms. Krebs submitted that the notes were relevant to the proceeding. The applicant's counsel confirmed that the notes had not been disclosed to the respondents or the Tribunal, and that she became counsel shortly before the hearing. Ms. Evans Maxwell did not object to the disclosure of the notes, but required a Tribunal order for their production. Further, Ms. Evans Maxwell submitted that the notes should be redacted to show only the housing issue raised in the Application, rather than full disclosure revealing all of Ms. MacDonald's case notes on issues that did not pertain to the Application. Ms. Krebs consented to this manner of production. The parties agreed that the relevant period for the notes was November 15, 2010 to April 2011.

11At the hearing, the Tribunal issued an oral ruling, ordering production of a redacted copy of Ms. MacDonald's notes, and indicating that this would be confirmed in an Interim Decision. Accordingly, the Tribunal orders that Ms. MacDonald's case notes, for the period November 15, 2010 to April 1, 2011, be disclosed to the respondents and the Tribunal, except for any information that does not pertain to the applicant's housing situation and efforts to obtain housing, which will be redacted.

The Superintendent

12At this point of the hearing, there has been evidence about the presence of a "superintendent" during the applicant's visits to the Dawes Road apartment building. Although during the hearing Ms. Krebs stated that the respondents' position is that the person was a rental agent and not a superintendent, both the Application and the Response refer to a "superintendent" being present while the applicant attended the Dawes Road apartment building.

13During the hearing, I stated that it would be helpful to hear the superintendent/rental agent's evidence as it appears to be relevant to the issue before me. Further, I stated that I may draw an adverse interest against a party for failing to call this person as a witness. I suggested that the respondents may want to have this person testify for them on their behalf.

Continuation Dates

14During the hearing, it was determined that two additional hearing dates will be required. The Tribunal canvassed the parties' availability for continuation dates and advised that it would schedule two continuation dates about which the parties will be advised under separate cover. Those additional dates are now set for February 12 and 13, 2013.

Order

15The Tribunal orders the following:

1. Within 30 days of the date of this Interim Decision: a. The corporate respondent is directed to deliver to the Tribunal and the applicant's counsel a copy of the corporate respondent's articles of incorporation; b. Carolyn Krebs and Marian Linton are directed to produce a copy of photo identification to the Tribunal and the applicant's counsel.

2. Forthwith, the applicant is ordered to disclose to the respondents and the Tribunal a redacted copy of Leigh MacDonald's case notes, for the period November 15, 2010 to April 1, 2011. All information in the case notes, apart from notes pertaining to the applicant's housing situation and attempts to find housing, is to be redacted (blacked out) from the copy provided to the respondents and the Tribunal. The originals should be brought to the hearing by Ms. MacDonald.

3. The hearing shall continue on February 12 and 13, 2013.