Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Christine Selinger Applicant
-and-
Icon Property Management Ltd. and Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1955 Respondents
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: May 28, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 932 Indexed as: Selinger v. Icon Property Management Ltd.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Christine Selinger, Applicant Victoria Shen, Counsel
Icon Property Management Ltd. and Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation 1955, Respondents Deborah Howden, Counsel
Reasons for Decision
1This Application was filed on August 13, 2012 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 housing because of disability.
2The applicant alleges that the respondents have failed to accommodate her needs with respect to accessible parking. The Application was originally filed against "Icon Property Management Ltd." and "The Board of Directors of the Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation 1955" as respondent parties.
3The respondents filed Responses on October 16, 2012, denying the allegations and asserting that they properly attempted to accommodate the applicant. The respondent Board of Directors of the Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation 1955 indicates that it is not a legal entity and that the correct entity to respond to the applicant's claims regarding the condominium is "Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1955". The Response also notes that the respondent condominium's accessible parking is shared with the adjacent property Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1949.
4On April 18, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings ("RFOP") requesting that the Tribunal provide notice to Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1949 as an affected party.
5On April 24, 2013, the applicant filed another RFOP seeking to correct the legal name of the respondent condominium and to amend the Application to add non-monetary and public interest remedies.
Request for Notice to Affected Party
6Under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure ("Rules"), an "affected person" includes an organization that is identified by the applicant or the respondent as being affected by the proceeding and entitled to notice of the proceeding (Rule 1.4).
7The Tribunal is empowered to direct that notice of its proceeding be given to any person or organization (Rule 1.7(f)). The purpose of such notice is to ensure that the affected person/organization is alerted to the existence of a Tribunal proceeding that potentially concerns them. Pursuant to Rule 3.14, the affected person may apply to intervene in the proceeding. If the affected person seeks to intervene, the Tribunal determines the extent to which that person/organization may participate in the proceeding. If the affected person does not request to intervene, the Tribunal may proceed with the Application without further notice to the person/organization.
8Although the applicant delivered a copy of her April 18, 2013 RFOP, the Application, Response and Reply, to the proposed affected party, no response has been received from Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1949 regarding its role as an affected party.
9Based on the pleadings, it appears that the parties agree that the parking area in dispute is shared with Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1949. It does not appear to be contested that Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1949 may have an interest in the issues and may be impacted by the outcome. In her RFOP, the applicant indicates that she intends to request a remedy that involves Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1949's parking.
10As such, the Tribunal will provide notice to Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1949 as an affected person.
Request to Amend
11Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal's Rules 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."
12The respondents did not file a response to the applicant's April 24, 2013 RFOP request to amend.
13In determining requests to amend applications filed under section 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](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/