Michael Lapointe v. Dewar’s Inn on the River, 2013 HRTO 1193

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Lapointe

Applicant

-and-

Dewar’s Inn on the River

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: July 9, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1193

Indexed as: Lapointe v. Dewar’s Inn on the River

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Dewar’s Inn on the River, Respondent

Pat Dewar, Representative

1This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s request for an extension of time to file its Response and its request for particulars.

factual background

2On April 10, 2013, the applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination because of family status and ancestry contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19. Specifically, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him when it refused to rent him a hotel room because he had two children with him. In answer to the question on the application form which asks how the incident affected him, the applicant referred to two other incidents which occurred in Quebec in which he was refused housing because he had children. He commented that he was saddened to have a similar incident occur once again. In this same section, he mentioned calling the police when the respondent refused to rent him a hotel room.

3The Response was originally due May 23, 2013. On May 14, 2013, the Tribunal granted the respondent’s request for an extension of time to file its Response until June 23, 2013.

4On June 14, 2013, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) in which it sought a further extension of time to file its Response. It also requested certain particulars from the applicant.

5The respondent sought a five month extension until November 23, 2013. The reasons provided for its request were that it was in the midst of renovating its properties and it was entering its peak season. The respondent stated that it did not have the time to research previous rulings regarding adult only accommodation, nor did it have the time to mount a reasonable defence.

6The respondent also sought production of the police report relating to the applicant’s call to the police. In addition, it sought a series of particulars relating to the two other incidents mentioned in the Application.

7In response to the respondent’s Request, the applicant filed with the Tribunal and delivered to the respondent a copy of the requested police report.

Findings

8I find that the reasons provided by the respondent do not justify an extension of time to file a Response. I am not persuaded that an extension is required for the respondent to adequately respond to the Application and, in my view, mere inconvenience to a party does not justify an extension. In a Response, a respondent is expected to respond to each allegation set out in the Application and include any additional facts and allegations on which the respondent relies. The Application in this case relates to one discrete incident. Any research into previous rulings is not required for purposes of the Response. The respondent will have ample time to research relevant caselaw prior to any hearing in this case. For these reasons, the respondent’s request for a five month extension is dismissed. The respondent is directed to file its Response within 14 days of this Interim Decision.

9As noted above, the applicant has provided the police report requested by the respondent. The respondent’s request for particulars relating to the two other incidents mentioned in the Application is denied. It is clear from the Application that the applicant is not seeking to hold the respondent responsible for these two other incidents which involved entirely other persons in Quebec. The applicant mentioned the two other incidents in the section of the form that asks about the effects of the incidents complained of on the applicant. It is apparent that the applicant only referred to the two incidents to state that he was saddened to have a similar incident occur when the respondent refused to rent him a hotel room. Accordingly, I find that any particulars relating to these two other incidents are not relevant to the respondent’s Response and do not have to be provided.

ORDER

10The Tribunal orders as follows:

a. Within 14 days of this Interim Decision, the respondent is directed to provide its Response to the Application.

b. The respondent’s request for production of the police report is moot as it has been provided by the applicant.

c. The respondent’s request for all other particulars is denied.