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: Brian Eyolfson Date: May 24, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 892 Indexed as: Welykyi v. Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Cindy Welykyi, Z.K. by his next friend T.S., T.S., Mimi Marilyn Gow, Debora Crew, Harold (Mike) Large, Betty Jarvis and Allan Mageau, Applicants Self-represented

William Bowerman and Elsie Biloki, Applicants Debora Crew, Representative

Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc. / Board of Directors, Laura Bordern and Amanda Whalen, Respondents Kiel Ardal, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1These Applications are filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), and allege discrimination in housing.

2By Interim Decision dated March 27, 2013, 2013 HRTO 519, these Applications were consolidated, and by Interim Decision dated April 22, 2013, 2013 HRTO 667, a Request for Interim Remedy was denied.

Requests to amend Applications

3This Interim Decision addresses Requests for Orders During Proceedings (“RFOPs”) dated March 26 and April 2, 2013, filed by nine of the applicants in this matter, seeking to amend their Applications to increase the amount of monetary compensation claimed. The applicant, Ms. Gow, does not appear to have filed such an RFOP.

4In their Response to the RFOPs dated April 15, 2013, the respondents oppose the RFOPs, with the exception that they consent to Mr. Large’s RFOP which they submit is for a modest increase in monetary compensation, and in stark contrast to the very large monetary increases requested by the other applicants.

DECISION

5Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that in order to provide for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it the Tribunal may “allow any filing to be amended.”

6In determining requests to amend applications filed under s. 34 of the Code, the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed amendments, the reasons for the amendments, the timing of the request to amend and the prejudice to the respondent. See Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336, Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926, and Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563.

7Having regard, in particular, to the respondents’ consent, Mr. Large’s RFOP to amend his Application with respect to the amount of monetary compensation claimed is granted.

8With respect to the eight remaining RFOPs, I am satisfied that these applicants should also be permitted to amend their Applications with respect to the amount of monetary compensation claimed. The amendments sought simply specify additional financial compensation being claimed. Previous decisions of the Tribunal have allowed amendments to Applications, including remedial claims, prior to the commencement of a hearing. See for example, Guzman v. Senton Incorporated, 2011 HRTO 1480, Marino v. Compuware Corporation of Canada, 2011 HRTO 1390, and Liu v. Everlink Payment Services Inc., 2013 HRTO 639. The requested amendments are permitted without any determination by the Tribunal as to the merits of the allegations or the appropriateness of the remedies sought, and without prejudice to any position the respondents may wish to take regarding these issues.

ORDER

9The applicants’ RFOPs to amend their Applications to increase the amount of monetary compensation claimed in their Applications is granted.

10I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of May, 2013.

”signed by”

Brian Eyolfson Vice-chair