Rafiqul Islam v. Helrit Investments Ltd. and Trevi Contractors Ltd., 2013 HRTO 120

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rafiqul Islam

Applicant

-and-

Helrit Investments Ltd. and Trevi Contractors Ltd.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: January 23, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 120 Indexed as: Islam v. Helrit Investments Ltd.

APPEARANCES

Rafiqul Islam, Applicant Bruce Best, Counsel

Helrit Investments Ltd. and Trevi Contractors Ltd., Respondents 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 began on January 22, 2013.

APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR ORDER DURING PROCEEDINGS

2At the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal dealt with a Request for Order During Proceedings filed on January 10, 2013, by the applicant. The respondent had not responded to the Request prior to the hearing. The Request contained four elements.

3With respect to the first and second elements, the applicant wanted to change the name of the respondent to Helrit Investments Ltd. and to add Trevi Contractors Ltd. Trevi Investments Inc. was the respondent originally named in the Application. Counsel for the respondent consented to change the name of the respondent to Helrit Investments Ltd. and to add Trevi Contractors Ltd., noting that he represented both. These corporations appear to have owned and managed the residential property for which the applicant applied to be a tenant, not Trevi Investments Inc. The Tribunal granted the change and the addition, and the style of cause now reflects the change to the respondents.

4The third and fourth elements were requests for an amendment to the Application and to the summary of what the applicant would say at the hearing. The applicant wanted to include the allegation that the respondent, Helrit Investments Ltd., demanded and collected from the applicant 12 months' rent in advance, on or about December 16, 2010, in order to rent apartment 103 at 50 Paisley Blvd., Mississauga, on the basis that he was a newcomer to Canada. The respondents consented to this amendment to the Application and to the summary of what the applicant would say at the hearing. The Tribunal granted the inclusion of the allegation through the amendment of the Application and the summary of what the applicant will say as a witness at the hearing.

ADJOURNMENT REQUEST

5After the Request was granted, the parties jointly requested that I adjourn the hearing. Because of illness and problems with a new computer system, the respondents' counsel did not receive the Request until a few days before the hearing, and he did not have an opportunity to review with his clients the evidence related to the proposed amendments to the Application. I granted the adjournment.

DIRECTION

6The applicant has 9 days from today's date to file with the Tribunal and deliver to the respondents an amended Application and summary of what the applicant will say.

7The respondents have 16 days from today's date to file with the Tribunal and deliver to the applicant (an) amended Response(s), all arguably relevant documents in their possession, with an indication of which documents they intend to rely upon at the hearing, and (amended) summaries of what their witnesses will say. These documents must include any and all of the respondents documents relevant to any 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, length of residence in Canada, guarantors or any other factor that is related to the 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.

8The (amended) summaries of what witnesses for the respondents will say must include details of exactly what is meant by the "credit criteria" that any agent of any respondent used to refuse the applicant's application for rental housing, and that any agent of any respondent may have used to require the applicant to provide 12 months of rent as a deposit.

9The parties agreed to March 6 and 8, 2013 hearing dates, and the Tribunal will accordingly schedule the continuation of the hearing for both those dates.