A.B. v. Havcare Investments Inc., 2012 HRTO 787

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: Naomi Overend Date: April 18, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 787 Indexed As: A.B. v. Havcare Investments Inc.

1This Application, which was filed on March 7, 2011, alleges discrimination on the basis of age in housing by the individual respondent Marian Linton contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). On August 12, 2011, the Tribunal issued Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 1510 (the “August 2011 Interim Decision”), adding Havcare Investments Inc. (“Havcare”) as a respondent. In the August 2011 Interim Decision, the Tribunal directed the two respondents, Marian Linton and Havcare, to file Responses within 35 days.

2On November 28, 2011, the Tribunal accepted the Response filed by Marian Linton. While it was faxed to the Tribunal from a fax number identified as “Havcare”, it does not clearly identify whether the Response was also being filed on behalf of Havcare.

3In the second Interim Decision, 2012 HRTO 100, issued on January 13, 2012, Marion Linton was directed to advise the Tribunal whether her Response was also filed on behalf of Havcare. In the event that it was not, Havcare was ordered to file its Response within 21 days from the date of the 2012 HRTO 100 Interim Decision together with an explanation of why its Response was not filed in accordance with the timelines set out in the August 2011 Interim Decision.

4A third Interim Decision, 2012 HRTO 409, was issued on February 27, 2012, in which I note the following:

It appears that Havcare refuses, or has chosen not to participate in these proceedings, notwithstanding notice of the implications of Rule 5.5. In the circumstances, the Tribunal orders that Havcare is deemed to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding pursuant to Rules 5.5(b) and (c). The Tribunal will proceed to an in-person hearing without the participation of the Havcare.

5On March 12, 2012, Marion Linton sent in a fax to the Tribunal, in which she indicated that the Response she had previously filed was on behalf of both her and Havcare. In light of this information, the order concerning the non-participation of Havcare, reproduced in paragraph 4 above, is revoked. Havcare will be entitled to participate and receive notice. The Tribunal will continue to send information for both respondents to Marion Linton.

6I am not seized.