C.R. v. Peregrine Co-op, 2015 HRTO 46

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

C.R.

Applicant

-and-

Peregrine Co-op

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

A.R. by his litigation guardian C.R.

Applicant

-and-

Peregrine Co-op

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: January 13, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 46

Indexed as: C.R. v. Peregrine Co-op

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

C.R., Applicant ) Self-represented

A.R., Applicant by his litigation ) Litigation Guardian

guardian C.R. )

Peregrine Co-op, Respondent ) Kent Elson, Counsel

Introduction

1This Interim Decision deals with the applicants’ Requests for Interim Remedy.

2The applicants filed these Applications on November 14 and December 12, 2014 respectively, alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, family status and receipt of public assistance contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Their Applications alleges that the respondent harassed the applicants, denied them services available to other members of the Co-op and is now threatening to evict them.

DEcision

3Rule 23.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, relating to requests for interim remedies, states:

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 favours 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.

4The applicants’ Requests were not supported by signed declarations, as required by Rule 23.3(b), and on this basis alone must fail. Moreover, the applicants’ assertion that they may be evicted from their housing is denied by the respondent in its Response to the Request for Interim Remedy. The respondent submits that it has not filed any materials seeking the eviction of the applicants. Indeed, the letter of November 14, 2014, submitted by the applicant as proof of the eviction threat, does not actually threaten eviction.

5In TA v. 60 Montclair, 2009 HRTO 369, the Tribunal states that interim remedies are extraordinary and are only granted when an applicant is able to demonstrate that such a remedy is necessary to ensure a complete, appropriate and effective remedy at the end of a hearing. The applicants have failed to articulate why such a remedy is necessary at this stage of the proceedings.

6In the circumstances, their Requests for Interim Remedy are denied.