HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Cindy Welykyi Applicant

-and-

Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc. / Board of Directors Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Z.K. by his next friend T.S. Applicant

-and-

Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc. / Board of Directors Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

William Bowerman Applicant

-and-

Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc. / Board of Directors Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

T.S. Applicant

-and-

Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc. / Board of Directors Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Mimi Marilyn Gow Applicant

-and-

Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc. / Board of Directors Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Betty Jarvis Applicant

-and-

Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc. / Board of Directors Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Elsie Biloki Applicant

-and-

Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc. / Board of Directors Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Debora Crew Applicant

-and-

Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc. / Board of Directors Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Harold (Mike) Large Applicant

-and-

Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc. / Board of Directors Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Allan Mageau Applicant

-and-

Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc. / Board of Directors, Laura Borden and Amanda Whalen Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner
Date: June 25, 2013
Citation: 2013 HRTO 1119
Indexed as: Welykyi v. Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Cindy Welykyi, T.S., Mimi Marilyn Gow, Debora Crew, Harold (Mike) Large, William Bowerman, Elsie Biloki and Allan Mageau, Applicants

Self-represented

Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc. / Board of Directors, Laura Borden and Amanda Whalen, Respondents

Kiel Ardal, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1These Applications are filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), and allege discrimination in housing.

2By Interim Decision dated March 27, 2013, 2013 HRTO 519, these Applications were consolidated, and by Interim Decision dated April 22, 2013, 2013 HRTO 667, a Request for Interim Remedy was denied. By Interim Decision dated May 24, 2013, 2013 HRTO 892, requests to amend the Applications were granted.

REQUESTS TO FURTHER AMEND APPLICATIONS

3This Interim Decision addresses a Request for Orders During Proceedings (“RFOP”) dated May 16, 2013, apparently filed by eight of the applicants in this matter: Mimi Gow (2012-12293-I), Elsie Biloki (2012-12444-I), William Bowerman (2012-12229-I), Allan Mageau (2012-12675-I), Debora Crew (2012-12445-I), Cindy Welykyi (2012-12227-I), T.S. (2012-12280-I) and Harold Large (2012-12622-I). They seek to amend their Applications to add an allegation of reprisal because the organizational respondent recently announced at general membership meetings that the applicants could not run for a seat on the Board of Directors because they are involved in these Applications.

4In their Response to the RFOPs dated May 28, 2013, the respondents stated that they do not oppose the RFOP; however, they request that the applicants making the request to add reprisal provide the information as to whether they had intended to run for a seat on the Board of Directors.

DECISION

5Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that in order to provide for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it the Tribunal may “allow any filing to be amended.”

6In determining requests to amend applications filed under s. 34 of the Code, the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed amendments, the reasons for the amendments, the timing of the request to amend and the prejudice to the respondent. See Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336, Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926, and Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563.

7Having regard, in particular, to the respondents’ position not to oppose the request, the Tribunal grants the RFOP to amend the eight Applications to include allegations of reprisal as described above. The requested amendment is permitted without any determination by the Tribunal as to the merits of the allegation, and without prejudice to any position the respondents may wish to take regarding the allegation of reprisal.

ORDER

8The applicants’ RFOP to amend their Applications to include reprisal in their Applications is granted.

DIRECTION

9Within 21 days, each of the eight applicants who has now been permitted to amend his or her Application to include an allegation of reprisal must file with the Tribunal and deliver to all other parties an amended Application that provides particulars with respect to the new allegation of reprisal. Those particulars must include whether he or she intended to run for a seat on the Board of Directors, and if so, when he or she decided to run. The respondents are directed to file with the Tribunal and deliver to all other parties their amended Response within 28 days of receiving the amended Applications.

NEXT STEP

10The Tribunal shall proceed to schedule the Applications for a hearing.