HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Delvon Greene
Applicant
-and-
Orion Property Management
and Peel Condominium Corporation No. 208
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw
Indexed as: Greene v. Orion Property Management
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Delvon Greene, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) in which he asks that two parties be added as respondents.
factual background
2This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to housing because of race and colour.
3The applicant filed an RFOP on October 25, 2013 asking that Peel Condominium Corporation No. 208 and its Board of Directors be added as respondents. The RFOP was delivered to both proposed respondents, but neither provided any response.
applicant’s submissions
4The applicant submits that the Peel Condominium Corporation and its Board of Directors were involved in the discrimination against him. It appears from his submissions that he was not aware that the Peel Condominium Corporation and the property management company were separate entities.
5His Application alleges that some of the members of the Board of Directors made racist comments to him, and his RFOP alleges that the Board of Directors was involved in the discrimination against him.
findings
6The analysis applied by the Tribunal when dealing with requests to add respondents is set out in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513, at para. 12. In Smyth, the Tribunal set out the following three considerations for deciding whether to add a respondent:
(1) Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?
(2) If the proposed respondent is an individual and an organization is also named, is there a compelling reason to include him or her as a respondent?
(3) Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?
7After considering the Smyth factors, I find that it is appropriate to add the Condominium Corporation as a respondent to the Application. The applicant has alleged that the Condominium Corporation is responsible for violations of the Code because of the treatment of the applicant by other residents and members of the Board of Directors.
8In my view, the applicant has made allegations that could support a finding that the Peel Condominium Corporation violated the Code.
9Because the Peel Condominium Corporation would be liable for acts of the Board of Directors, I do not find it appropriate to add the Board of Directors as a separate party to these proceedings. The applicant made allegations against certain individuals on the Board of Directors, but did not ask that these individuals be added as parties in their own right.
10Since the Application has not been scheduled for hearing, I consider it fair in all the circumstances to add the Peel Condominium Corporation as a respondent.
11The Tribunal orders as follows:
a. The applicant’s request to add Peel Condominium Corporation No. 208 as a respondent is granted and the style of cause amended accordingly.
b. The Registrar will deliver the Application, a Notice of Application, the Response filed by the respondent Orion and this decision to Peel Condominium Corporation.
b. Peel Condominium Corporation is directed to file a Response to the Application with the Tribunal in accordance with the Rules within 35 days of the date of the Notice of Application.
c. The applicant may file a Reply to the Peel Condominium Corporation’s Response in accordance with the Rules.
d. The applicant’s request to add the Board of Directors as a respondent is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 16^th^ day of December, 2013.
“Signed by”
Dawn J. Kershaw
Vice-chair