Levkivska v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231, 2015 HRTO 1026

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Oksana Levkivska

Applicant

-and-

Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231

and Elizabeth Ann deCasseres

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: July 31, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1026

Indexed as: Levkivska v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Oksana Levkivska, Applicant

Self-represented

Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231 and Elizabeth Ann deCasseres, Respondent

Bradley Chaplick, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to housing because of family status and reprisal or threat of reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2By Registrar’s letter dated March 23, 2015, the Tribunal deferred consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of the Superior Court Application and Counter Application.

3On July 10, 2015 the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (the “Request”) seeking to re-activate the deferred Application.

4On July 23, 2015 the respondents filed a Response to the Request submitting that the Request be dismissed as being out of time and/or deficient on its face or if re-activated that the Application be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

TIMELINESS OF REQUEST

5Pursuant to Rule 14 a request to proceed with an application must be filed no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding.

6The respondents argue that the Request was not filed within the 60-day time limit as the related civil proceeding was concluded when the court ruled on the merits of the application on March 5, 2015.

7It would appear however that the court adjourned the matter on March 5, 2015 “to the final hearing in 60 days or thereafter” and that it returned on May 19, 2015 making its order as to costs. In my view, the related civil proceeding concluded on May 19, 2015. Under these circumstances, I find therefore that the Request was filed on a timely basis.

DEFECTIVE REQUEST

8The respondents argue that even if the Request is timely, it is deficient in several respects. They complain that the Request must comply with Rule 14 and, therefore, must state the date the related proceeding concluded and must include a copy of the decision. Attached to the Request is the court’s May 19, 2015 “Reasons Re: Costs”. Clearly this is a “copy of the decision” and clearly it establishes the date the proceeding concluded, namely, May 19, 2015. It might have been preferable to include a copy of the merits decision however, the “Reasons Re: Costs” reviews quite extensively the merits decision by way of informing the decision as to costs.

9The respondents complain that the Request does not state any reason for the request or provide any supporting documents as required by Rule19.4. In my view, the reason for the Request is obvious – to reactivate the Application. I interpret the copy of the “Reasons Re: Costs” attached to the Request as a supporting document.

10Given the foregoing, the Request is granted and the Application is re-activated.

11It is now appropriate to determine whether the Application should be dismissed. The respondents have raised the issue of no reasonable prospect of success. In my view, however, the issue is whether section 45.1 of the Code applies or if it would be an abuse of process to allow the Application to continue. See for example G.G. v. 1489024, 2012 HRTO 135 and Ali v. AVIS Budget Group, 2015 HRTO 143. Accordingly, a half-day teleconference hearing will be held to deal with the issue.

orders

12I make the following orders/directions:

a. The Application is re-activated;

b. A half-day teleconference hearing on the question of dismissal of the Application will be scheduled by the Registrar;

c. The hearing will address only the question of dismissal pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code or on the basis of abuse of process;

d. The respondents should be prepared to proceed first at the hearing; and,

e. Any party wishing to rely on written materials not already filed with the Tribunal or any facts not contained in the Application or Response must deliver such documents or information to the other parties and file them with the Tribunal no less than 21 days prior to the scheduled hearing date.