Rafiqul Islam v. Trevi Investments Inc., 2012 HRTO 2206

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rafiqul Islam

Applicant

-and-

Trevi Investments Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: November 26, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2206

Indexed as: Islam v. Trevi Investments Inc.

APPEARANCES

Rafiqul Islam, Applicant

Bruce Best, Counsel

Trevi Investments Inc., Respondent

David Strashin, Representative

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 because of place of origin and citizenship. A hearing of this matter has been scheduled to begin on January 22, 2012.

RESPONDENT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH INTERIM DECISION

2Following a hearing on September 24, 2012 that was adjourned given that the respondent’s counsel had become suddenly ill, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision on September 25, 2012. Amongst other directions, the Interim Decision required the respondent to file witness statements summarizing what each witness would say, particularly with respect to what exactly is meant by the “credit criteria” the Response indicates the applicant did not meet when the applicant’s application for housing was reviewed by the respondent. The Interim Decision also directed the respondent to confirm, within 14 days, the legal name of the property management company operating the building with the unit which the applicant wanted to rent, as well as the legal name of the owner of the building. The respondent has still not complied with these directions.

TELECONFERENCE HEARING ON NOVEMBER 22, 2012

3Counsel for the parties appeared by teleconference at a preliminary hearing on November 22, 2012 to address the respondent’s failure to comply with directions. By this point, the respondent had, in fact, filed a document upon which it intends to rely at the hearing, and indicated that one witness would testify, an employee who dealt directly with the applicant, and this employee’s evidence “will deal directly with the application process and her direct contact with the Applicant.”

4At the teleconference hearing, counsel for the respondent agreed with counsel for the applicant that there does not appear to legally exist “Trevi Investments Inc.”, the respondent as named in the Application. He also agreed that his client’s legal name is not “Trevi Investments Limited”, the name on the document the respondent filed under Rule 16, a form entitled “Application for Residential Tenancy” that the respondent apparently requested the applicant to complete. Counsel for the respondent explained that he was having difficulty discovering from his client what its legal name is, but assured the Tribunal that he could easily conduct a search to confirm the legal name of the owner of the property containing the apartment that the applicant wanted to rent. He also agreed to obtain from his client the legal name of any property management company that might have been involved in screening the rental application of the applicant. He agreed that once this information is obtained, it would be appropriate to amend the Application to represent the legal name of the respondent, and, if a property management company was involved, to add a respondent.

5The respondent’s counsel also attempted to explain the respondent’s failure to comply with the direction in the Interim Decision to provide, in a witness statement, a detailed summary of what exactly is meant by the “credit criteria” that the respondent used to refuse the applicant’s application for rental housing. The respondent’s counsel explained that it has been difficult to obtain information from his client with respect to what credit criteria it used in the case of the applicant, and agreed that it may be necessary for him to include another witness to clarify.

6Counsel for the applicant argued that while the respondent provided some disclosure with respect to the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure after the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings for compliance with Rules 16 and 17, disclosure was not complete and the respondent still needed to provide the information required in the Interim Decision.

ORDER

7The respondent has 14 days from today’s date to confirm with the applicant and the Tribunal its legal name and the legal name of any property management company which was involved in screening the applicant’s rental application.

8The respondent has 14 days from today’s date to file with the Tribunal and deliver to the applicant any and all of its or any agent’s documents relevant to the credit criteria, including internal documents which reference any policy, practice or direction to employees or agents to review any of the following factors in screening applications for rental housing: income (source or amount), credit rating or history, rental history, guarantors or any other factor that is related to the credit criteria used by the respondent. These documents might include, but are not restricted to: memos, emails, training materials or contents in a manual or policy.

9In order to comply with Rule 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the respondent has 14 days from today’s date to amend the summary of what its witness will say, and to file any additional statement of what any additional witness will say, ensuring to include details of exactly what is meant by the “credit criteria” that the respondent used to refuse the applicant’s application for rental housing.

10At the commencement of the hearing on January 22, 2013, the Tribunal will address any failure by the respondent to comply with the above directions bearing in mind the ample notice that the respondent has had in this case to comply with Rules 16 and 17 and with the Interim Decision of September 25, 2012. The Tribunal may receive submissions from the parties with respect to what evidence the respondent should be permitted to adduce, including evidence pertaining to the “credit criteria” if the respondent fails to provide notice, through disclosure of documents or witness statement(s), of exactly what that criteria are.