Alvaro Jose Carol v. York Region Standard Condominum Corporation 1190 and Shiu Pong Management Ltd, 2014 HRTO 1205

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alvaro Jose Carol

Applicant

-and-

York Region Standard Condominum Corporation 1190 and Shiu Pong Management Ltd

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: August 12, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1205 Indexed as: Carol v. York Region Standard Condominum Corporation 1190

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

York Region Standard Condominum Corporation 1190 and, Respondents

Maria Kotsolpoulos, Counsel

Introduction

1This Interim Decision addresses the respondents’ request that the Tribunal dismiss the Application due to the applicant’s failure to comply with the Tribunal’s directions and its Rules of Procedure (“Rules”)

2The Application is scheduled to be heard on August 25, 2014.

3By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated July 21, 2014, the Tribunal directed the applicant to make the disclosure required under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules.

4By e-mail dated July 30, 2014, the applicant’s newly retained counsel requested an extension of time to make the required disclosure. On the same date the Tribunal issued a follow-up CAD providing the applicant with a last chance to make the required disclosure within 7 days.

5On August 6, 2014, the applicant disclosed the documents he intends to rely upon at the hearing as well as an affidavit of his intended evidence.

6In my view, the applicant’s affidavit provides sufficient notice to the respondent of the case they have to meet. While the respondent sees the assertions in the affidavit as “bald assertions”, the basis for the applicant’s claims is nonetheless sufficiently clear. I anticipate that the respondents do not agree with many of the applicant’s assertions or his legal submissions. Those are issues to be dealt with at the hearing where the Tribunal will hear the parties’ evidence and submissions and render a decision as to whether the applicant has met his onus of making out a violation of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H 19, as amended (the “Code”).

ORDER

7For the reasons set out above, the respondents’ request to dismiss is denied.