Cromwell-Forrest v. Supportive Housing in Peel, 2015 HRTO 652

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kayla Cromwell-Forrest

Applicant

-and-

Supportive Housing in Peel and Greg Reidstra

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eli Fellman Date: May 19, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 652 Indexed as: Cromwell-Forrest v. Supportive Housing in Peel

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Kayla Cromwell-Forrest, Applicant

Brenda Culbert, Counsel

Supportive Housing in Peel and Greg Reidstra, Respondents

No submissions provided

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to housing because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges that the respondents failed to replace the applicant’s damaged front door in a timely manner; demanded that the applicant pay the cost of replacing the front door; and threatened to evict the applicant if she did not pay for the cost of replacing the front door.

2On April 14, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) in which she sought to add Greg Reidstra as a personal respondent to the Application. The organizational respondent identified Mr. Reidstra as the owner of the applicant’s apartment building.

3The applicant submitted proof that the RFOP was served on both the proposed personal respondent and the organizational respondent. The Tribunal did not receive a response to the applicant’s RFOP from either respondent.

4The analysis applied by the Tribunal when dealing with requests to add respondents is set out in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513, at para. 12 (Smyth). In Smyth, the Tribunal set out the following three considerations for deciding whether to add a respondent:

(1) Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?

(2) If the proposed respondent is an individual and an organization is also named, is there a compelling reason to include him or her as a respondent?

(3) Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?

5Having considered the factors set out in Smyth, I find it appropriate to grant the applicant’s request to add Mr. Reidstra as a personal respondent. The applicant’s allegations relate to an alleged failure to repair or replace a broken front door in a rental unit owned by Mr. Reidstra. As the owner, Mr. Reidstra has a responsibility to perform required repairs to the applicant’s rental unit in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. If the applicant is successful in proving that the alleged failure to perform required repairs to the rental unit constitutes discrimination due to disability, it may be appropriate for the Tribunal to award a remedy against the personal respondent.

ORDER

6For the reasons set out above, the applicant’s request to add Greg Reidstra as a personal respondent is granted. The style of cause shall be amended accordingly.

7The Tribunal will deliver the Application to Mr. Reidstra, who is required to file his Response with the Tribunal within 35 days in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure.

8I am not seized.