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: David Muir

Date: April 22, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 667

Indexed as: Welykyi v. Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc.

1These are ten Applications 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 gender identity and race. Many of the allegations in the Applications concern the posting of offensive messages at the organizational respondent’s premises. The Applications also allege, in essence, that not enough has been done to identify the individual(s) responsible for posting the messages.

2A Request for Interim Remedy (Rule 23) has been filed on behalf of all of the applicants. The applicants seek an Order directing the respondent to replace security cameras which it has recently removed. The applicants also seek an Order suspending the all of the current Board of Directors except for two newly elected Board Members.

3This Request has not been delivered to the respondent and accordingly there is no Response to it.

4Rule 23 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides in part as follows:

23.1 An Applicant may request that the Tribunal order an interim remedy in an Application. A Request for an Interim Remedy must be made in Form 16. If the Request is made at the same time the Application is filed, it need not be delivered to the other parties. If it is made at a later stage, it must be delivered to the other parties and filed with the Tribunal.

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

5In TA v. 60 Montclair, 2009 HRTO 369 at para. 23, the Tribunal held that the fundamental consideration in determining whether to award an interim remedy is:

whether an interim remedy is necessary to facilitate and ensure the Tribunal is able to award a complete, appropriate and effective remedy at the end of a hearing, should a violation of the Code be found.

6The Tribunal in TA v. Montclair, above, also noted that an applicant seeking an interim remedy will have a significant onus to meet to demonstrate that the Request meets the three elements in Rule 23.2 and is necessary to further the remedial objects of the Code. See also Kwan v. Hospital for Sick Children, 2009 HRTO 621.

7I am not satisfied that the applicants have met the significant onus of establishing that their Request meets the criteria in Rule 23.2 and is necessary to further the remedial objects of the Code.

8The applicants have filed a declaration attesting to the facts relied on in support of this Request. It is signed by 9 of the 10 applicants.

9In respect of the request that security cameras be re-installed, the applicants speculate that their absence may lead to further incidents of the kind giving rise to the Applications in the first place. In my view, a speculative consequence of a decision taken which may or may not ultimately relate to the issues in dispute in the Applications is an insufficient reason to award an interim remedy.

10As regards the request to suspend the entire Board of Directors except for two newly elected Board members, the applicants argue that the current Board may be in a conflict of interest. The suggestion appears to be that because of these Applications the Board may not act in the best interest of the Co-op and its members. Again this is entirely speculative. In any case the remedy sought is an extraordinary one. It is not at all clear that this is a remedy that the Tribunal would grant. In the circumstances of a request of what must be seen as an extraordinary remedy much more than mere speculation is required.

11For all of these reasons the Request is denied.