HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Sheila Chalykoff
Applicant
-and-
Quality Living Housing Co-operative
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Chalykoff v. Quality Living Housing Co-operative
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Sheila Chalykoff, Applicant
Self-represented
Quality Living Housing Co-operative, Respondent
Michael K.E. Thiele, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed 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 accommodation because of receipt of public assistance.
2The applicant has filed a Request for Interim Remedy. The respondent has responded to the Request.
3The Request is denied. The Tribunal Rule 23 provides as follows:
23.1 An Applicant may request that the Tribunal order an Interim Remedy in an Application. A Request for an Interim Remedy must be made in Form 16. If the Request is made at the same time the Application is filed, it need not be delivered to the other parties. If it is made at a later stage, it must be delivered to the other parties and filed with the Tribunal.
23.2 The Tribunal may grant an Interim Remedy where it is satisfied that:
a) the Application appears to have merit;
b) the balance of harm or convenience favors granting the Interim Remedy requested; and,
c) it is just and appropriate in the circumstances to do so.
23.3 A Request for an Interim Remedy must include:
a) a detailed description of the order sought;
b) one or more declarations signed by persons with direct first-hand knowledge detailing all of the facts upon which the Applicant relies; and,
c) submissions with respect to the merits of the Application, the balance of harm or convenience and why an Interim Remedy would be just and appropriate in the circumstances, in accordance with the Rule 23.2.
23.4 The other parties must file their response, if any, in Form 17, Response to Request for Interim Remedy, not later than seven days after the Form 16 was delivered. The Form 17 must be delivered to the other parties and any affected persons identified in the Application and filed with the Tribunal not later than seven days after the request was sent or as the Tribunal directs.
23.5 A Response to Request for Interim Remedy must be delivered to all other parties and filed with the Tribunal and must include:
a) one or more declarations signed by persons with direct first-hand knowledge detailing all of the facts upon which the Respondent relies; and,
b) submissions with respect to the merits of the Application, the balance of harm or convenience and why an Interim Remedy would not be just and appropriate in the circumstances, in accordance with the Rule 23.2.
4In her Request for Interim Remedy, she seeks the following:
a. The respondent allow the applicant to continue to reside with her parents in the Co-op until a resolution, until the Application is resolved;
b. The respondent, its Board, Committees and/or any Members be prevented from penalizing either or both of the applicant’s parents, including but not limited to loss of status, position or membership, and/or the rights pertaining there to.
5The applicant is now residing with her parents in the co-op contrary to the respondent’s by-laws. The applicant alleges that her parents may be threatened with eviction because they are not compliant with the respondent’s by-laws. The applicant alleges that she cannot afford to find her own accommodation consequently exposing her parents to the risk of eviction.
6The granting of an Interim Remedy is an extraordinary step. It involves requiring the respondents to take certain actions prior to a hearing on the merits of the Application and before any violation of the Code has been proven.
7The conditions for awarding an Interim Remedy are set out as follows in Rule 23.2 reproduced again for convenience:
The Tribunal may grant an Interim Remedy where it is satisfied that:
a) the Application appears to have merit;
b) the balance of harm or convenience favors granting the Interim Remedy requested; and,
c) it is just and appropriate in the circumstances to do so.
8In TA v. 60 Montclair, 2009 HRTO 369, at para. 23, the Tribunal held that the fundamental consideration in determining whether to award an Interim Remedy is:
whether an Interim Remedy is necessary to facilitate and ensure the Tribunal is able to award a complete, appropriate and effective remedy at the end of a hearing, should a violation of the Code be found.
9The Tribunal in TA v. Montclair, above, also noted that an applicant seeking an Interim Remedy will have a significant onus to meet to demonstrate that the Request meets the three elements in Rule 23.2 and is necessary to further the remedial objects of the [Code](https://