Reyes v. Vertica Resident Services, 2012 HRTO 981

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Althea Reyes

Applicant

-and-

Vertica Resident Services

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Decision Date: May 15, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 981

Indexed as: Reyes v. Vertica Resident Services

Introduction

1This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Interim Remedy made on the applicant’s behalf by her sister. The applicant filed this Application on April 30, 2012 alleging discrimination in the occupancy of accommodation on the basis of race, colour and sex (pregnancy), contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O.1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”).

2On May 14, 2012, the applicant’s sister filed a Request for Interim Remedy (Form 16) on the applicant’s behalf, as the applicant had recently given birth. Rule 23.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, relating to requests for interim remedies, states:

23.2 The Tribunal may grant an interim remedy where it is satisfied that:

(a) the Application appears to have merit;

(b) the balance of harm or convenience favours granting the interim remedy requested; and,

(c) it is just and appropriate in the circumstances to do so.

23.3 A Request for an Interim Remedy must include:

(a) a detailed description of the order sought;

(b) one or more declarations signed by persons with direct first-hand knowledge detailing all of the facts upon which the Applicant relies; and,

(c) submissions with respect to the merits of the Application, the balance of harm or convenience and why an interim remedy would be just and appropriate in the circumstances, in accordance with the Rule 23.2.

3The Request for Interim Remedy was not supported by a signed declaration, as required by Rule 23.3(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules and on this basis alone must fail. In any event, the Request for Interim Remedy does not contain sufficient information on which such a request could be granted.

4The relief sought in the Request is an Order that the landlord not be permitted to execute the eviction order against the applicant, but from the email exchange included with the Request, it would appear that the order has already been executed. It would appear that, as a subset of that relief, the applicant’s sister is asking that the landlord not dispose of her sister’s possessions during the six-week period she will require to recuperate from her C-section. There is, however, no information about whether there are other individuals who are able to remove these possessions on the applicant’s behalf during the allotted 72-hour time period.

5Finally, the Tribunal has insufficient information to determine whether it has jurisdiction over this Application or whether the Application has merit. The applicant did not provide a copy of the Landlord and Tenant Board decision(s) or the material she has apparently filed with the Divisional Court. In the absence of this information, the Tribunal is unable to say the balance of harm or convenience favours the granting of the remedy.

6In the circumstances, the Request for Interim Remedy is denied.

7I am not seized of this matter.