Rajiv Sharma v. The Corporation of the City of Waterloo, Andrew Cooper and Pat Lago, 2015 HRTO 1020

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rajiv Sharma Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the City of Waterloo, Andrew Cooper and Pat Lago Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart Date: July 30, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1020 Indexed as: Sharma v. Waterloo (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Rajiv Sharma, Applicant Osborne Barnwell, Counsel

The Corporation of the City of Waterloo, Andrew Cooper and Pat Lago, Respondents Edward Dreyer, Counsel

1These are two Applications alleging discrimination with respect to services by the respondents contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The first Application (2014-17865-I) was filed on June 4, 2014 and alleges discrimination because of race, colour, ancestry and ethnic origin. The second Application (2014-19552-I) alleges reprisal and was filed on December 4, 2014 and amended on April 9, 2015.

2The first Application is scheduled to proceed to a hearing in Toronto on October 1 and 2, 2015. The second Application has not yet been scheduled for a hearing.

3The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request to amend his first Application to allege that a City of Waterloo by-law is in violation of the Code.

4I also will address whether these two Applications should be consolidated and heard together.

Applicant’s Request to Amend

5By Request for Order dated July 5, 2015, the applicant requests leave to amend the first Application to allege that a City of Waterloo by-law is in violation of the Code. This request is opposed by the respondents.

6In determining requests to amend applications, 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, for example, Odell v. TTC, [2001] OHRBID No. 2, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336, Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926.

7In my view, it is sufficient to dispose of the applicant’s request to simply consider the nature of the proposed amendments. This Tribunal’s jurisdiction only extends to alleged violations of the Code. In the proposed amendments as filed, the applicant does not assert any basis upon which the City by-law could be found to be in violation of the Code.

8In paragraph 3 of the proposed amendment, the applicant asserts that the by-law “punishes only certain landlords unnecessarily” and is “arbitrary and discriminatory and causes a disparate impact on him and others in his position”. The applicant further asserts that the by-law “causes significant impact on those persons who seek rentals which make rental space prohibitive to the vulnerable”.

9In paragraph 5 of the proposed amendment, the applicant asserts that “the by-law offends the Human Rights Code in that it targets home owners as a group and has no legal justification”.

10Nowhere in the proposed amendment does the applicant assert that the by-law discriminates against him by denying him equal treatment with respect to services because of one of the protected grounds under the Code or provide any basis to support any such connection or link to one of the protected grounds. “Home owners as a group” is not a protected group under the Code. Allegedly “punishing only certain landlords” does not provide any link or connection to any protected ground. “Persons who seek rentals” and “the vulnerable” not only do not provide any link or connection to a protected ground under the Code, but also are not classes of persons of which the applicant is a member, as the applicant is the building owner and landlord.

11Accordingly, the nature of the proposed amendments does not provide any basis to support any alleged violation of the Code because of the City by-law. For this reason alone, the applicant’s request to amend the first Application is denied.

Consolidation and Next Steps

12In my view, these two Applications should be consolidated and heard together. Both Applications involve the same parties, and the second Application as amended represents basically a continuation of the interactions between the parties regarding essentially the same issues. Having these two matters proceed separately would entail having two separate hearings where essentially the same factual ground would be gone over, the same witnesses would be called to testify, and similar issues would need to be addressed, which would not be consistent with this Tribunal’s mandate to secure the fair, just and expeditious resolution of proceedings under the Code.

13I am aware that the first Application already has been scheduled for a hearing on October 1 and 2, 2015 and that the deadline for the parties to exchange arguably relevant documents in relation to the first Application already has passed and the deadline for the parties to file their hearing materials is coming up on August 17, 2015.

14I also am aware that, in contrast, the second Application has not yet been scheduled for a hearing, and so no deadlines have yet been set for the parties to exchange arguably relevant documents or file hearing materials.

15At the same time, the scheduled hearing dates are still two months away, and in my view this should give the parties more than enough time to exchange documents relating to the second Application and prepare hearing materials for both Applications, with a short extension to the deadline set in the first Application for filing hearing materials.

16Accordingly, I am setting a deadline of August 21, 2015 for the parties to comply with Rule 16.1 and exchange their arguably relevant documents in relation to the second Application, and am extending the deadline for the parties to comply with Rules 16.2, 16.3 and 17 and file the documents upon which they intend to rely at the hearing and their witness statements with respect to both Applications to September 11, 2015.

ORDER

17For the foregoing reasons, I hereby make the following order:

a. The applicant’s request to amend Application 2014-17865-I is denied;

b. Application 2014-17865-I and Application 2014-19552-I are hereby consolidated and will be heard together on October 1 and 2, 2015;

c. By no later than August 21, 2015, the parties shall comply with Rule 16.1 and exchange their arguably relevant documents in relation to the Application 2014-19552-I; and

d. By no later than September 11, 2015, the parties shall comply with Rules 16.2, 16.3 and 17 and file the documents upon which they intend to rely at the hearing and their witness statements with respect to both Applications.