HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Matthew Deveaux
Applicant
-and-
Transglobe Apartment Real Estate Investment Trust
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Deveaux v. Transglobe Apartment Real Estate Investment Trust
APPEARANCES
Mathew Deveaux, Applicant Self-represented
Transglobe Apartment Real Estate Investment Trust, Respondent David Hanick, Counsel
1This 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 age, ancestry, ethnic origin, place of origin, race and reprisal. This Interim Decision deals with a number of issues raised by the parties.
2In his Application the applicant makes two general allegations: first, that he was denied accommodation for discriminatory reasons; and second, that inappropriate comments were made to him by representatives of the corporate respondent during his brief inter-actions with them.
3In its Response the respondent claims what it characterises as the exemption provided in section 21.3 of the Code and asks that the Application be dismissed because the respondent adheres to the requirement of the section in every respect. The respondent reiterated this request in a Request for Order During Proceeding (“Request”).
4Section 21.3 provides as follows:
The right under section 2 to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of residential accommodation without discrimination is not infringed if a landlord uses in the manner prescribed under this Act income information, credit checks, credit references, rental history, guarantees or other similar business practices which are prescribed in the regulations made under this Act in selecting prospective tenants.
5The Request is dismissed.
6The section provides a defence to the respondent which is dependent on it establishing with evidence that it complied with the requirements of the section or that the applicant’s application for tenancy was somehow defective. This defence may be an answer to one of the general allegations made by the applicant and can be raised in the hearing of this case at the appropriate time. The defence does not address the other allegation of the applicant that inappropriate comments were made to him. I observe at this stage that the respondent has not provided any response to these allegations to this point of the proceeding.
TRIBUNAL ORDERED INQUIRY
7The applicant filed a Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry. It appears that what the applicant is seeking is part of a video tape. It is not clear from the Request what exactly is sought and it is not clear how it relates to the issues raised in the Application. The respondent opposes the Request on a number of technical grounds and advises that it has no knowledge of the recording and does not have it in its possession.
8The Request is denied. It appears to be nothing more than a Request for Production. The respondent states that it does not possess the recording and has no knowledge of it. A Tribunal Ordered Inquiry would not be appropriate in the circumstances.
REQUEST TO ADD A PARTY
9The applicant seeks to add two additional respondents, officials of the corporate respondent with whom he allegedly interacted briefly and who he alleges made inappropriate comments which he claims engage the Code. The respondent objects to the Request but provides no particular reason for this objection. The respondent does advise that the two individual respondents are no longer its employees and it has no contact information for them.
10As a practical matter it makes little sense to add to this Application two individuals who while they are at the centre of the allegations made by the applicant are, according to the respondent, no longer in its employ and where their whereabouts are unknown. I note as well that these individuals were employed by the respondent and apparently acting in the course of their employment. As such the respondent is likely liable for their conduct in the event that the any part of this Application is successful. I also note that this Application was filed in May 2012. It is now May 2013 and the Application is to be scheduled for a hearing. It is too late to be adding parties who have to date no knowledge of the existence of this dispute. The addition of new respondents can only further delay the adjudication of this Application.
11The applicant’s Request is denied.
THE RESPONDENT’S REQUEST THAT THE REPLY BE STRUCK AND APPLICATION DISMISSED
12The respondent has requested that the applicant’s Reply be struck and that the Application be dismissed. These Requests are denied. The basis for these Requests are variously that the Reply is not responsive to the issues raised in the Response and that it was filed very late. In my view the Reply is responsive to the Response, which as I previously observed is itself incomplete. Although the Reply largely repeats the allegations in the Application it is in its way an explanation of the applicant’s position that section 21.3 of the Code does not apply. Although the Reply should have been filed sooner than it was, there is no prejudice to the respondent in this document’s late filing.
NEXT STEPS
13The mediation previously scheduled was cancelled at the request of the respondent. The case will be scheduled for a one day hearing.
14I am not seized of this case.
Dated at Toronto, this 22nd day of May, 2013.
“Signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair```