Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Ian Greaves Applicant
-and-
Niagara South Condominium Corporation No. 54 and Cannon Greco Management Limited Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: August 1, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1165 Indexed as: Greaves v. Niagara South Condominium Corporation No. 54
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Ian Greaves, Applicant Gillian Fahy, Counsel
Niagara South Condominium Corporation No. 54 and Cannon Greco Management Limited, Respondents K.C. Wysynski, Counsel
Introduction
1This Interim Decision addresses the Requests for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOPs”) filed by each of the parties.
Factual Background
2By Application filed on May 12, 2014, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against him because of disability and reprised against him contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, he alleged that the respondents failed to provide reasonable accommodations for his disability. He named the following respondents to his Application: Niagara South Condominium Corporation No. 54 and Cannon Greco Management Limited, Peter Greco, Don Jackson, and Richard Merritt II Oswald.
3The applicant filed an RFOP on June 24, 2014 seeking to amend his Application and to add and remove certain respondents. Specifically, the applicant sought to amend the Application to replace the Application with the newly drafted Application form contained in Schedules B and C to his RFOP. The new form was drafted by legal counsel who he retained shortly after filing his Application. The applicant also requested that the Tribunal remove Mr. Greco as a personal respondent. He requested that the Board of Directors of Niagara South Condominium Corporation No. 54 be added as an organizational respondent. He also requested that Mary Mauriello and Linda Wedge-Garon be added as personal respondents. Both of these individuals were members of the Board of Directors of Niagara South Condominium Corporation No. 54 at the relevant time. In subsequent correspondence, the applicant consented to removing Mr. Oswald as a personal respondent.
4By Response to the RFOP dated July 15, 2014, the respondents did not oppose the proposed amendments to the facts set out in the proposed Application with the exception of references to “Respondent Board members”. The respondents opposed the proposed addition of legal submissions and caselaw to the Application. The respondents did not oppose the removal of Mr. Greco and Mr. Oswald as personal respondents. The respondents opposed the applicant’s request to add the other proposed personal respondents. The respondents also request that the Tribunal remove Don Jackson as a personal respondent.
Request to Amend Application
5In light of lack of any opposition from the respondents, I grant the applicant’s request to amend his Application to add the materials included at Schedules B and C to his June 24, 2014 RFOP. However, I agree with the respondents that it is not appropriate to permit the applicant to amend the Application to include the legal submissions and case references contained at paras. 14-16 and 19 of Schedule C of the applicant’s RFOP. Such submissions and case references are more properly made in the course of closing submissions in a hearing on the merits of the Application. In light of my conclusions below, any references to “respondent board members” should also be omitted from the amended Application.
Requests to Add and Remove Respondents
6The analysis applied by the Tribunal when dealing with requests to add respondents is the analysis set out in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513 at para. 12 (“Smyth”). In Smyth, the Tribunal set out the following three considerations for deciding whether to add a respondent:
- Are there allegations made