Paula Bussey v. Cedar Range Management Inc., 2015 HRTO 87

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Paula Bussey Applicant

-and-

Cedar Range Management Inc., Glen Fahselt, James Terrance Webster, Nancy Vanthuyne, Luke Vanthuyne and Lisa Marie Paskas Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw Date: January 21, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 87 Indexed As: Bussey v. Cedar Ridge Management Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Paula Bussey, Applicant Self-represented

Cedar Range Management Inc., Glen Fahselt, Nancy Vanthuyne, Luke Vanthuyne and Lisa Marie Paskas, Respondents Self-represented

Introduction

1This Application alleges reprisal and discrimination with respect to housing because of disability, sex, sexual solicitation or advances, marital status, association contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2This Interim Decision addresses on a preliminary basis the applicant's October 22 and December 18, 2014 Form 10 Requests for an Order During Proceedings ("RFOP"), respectively. In the October 22, 2014 RFOP, the applicant requests reactivation of the Application and permission to amend the Application to include a further claim of reprisal ("the reactivation and amendment RFOP"). In the December 18, 2014 RFOP, she asks that Lisa Paskas be removed as a respondent ("the removal RFOP").

3The respondent, Cedar Range Management Inc. ("the corporate respondent"), filed a December 6, 2014 letter indicating it did not respond to the applicant's reactivation and amendment RFOP because the Application was deferred and it believed it did not have to do so until reactivation, to which it did not object. The personal respondents also filed no objection to the reactivation request. All the respondents filed letters objecting to the removal of Lisa Paskas as a respondent.

4Before the removal RFOP was filed, the Tribunal, in a November 28, 2014 Case Assessment Direction ("CAD"), requested further information with respect to the Landlord and Tenant Board proceedings as well as confirmation from the applicant that the respondents were served with the reactivation and amendment RFOP.

5The applicant confirmed that she withdrew any outstanding Landlord and Tenant Board applications, and provided Form 23 Statements of Delivery confirming delivery of both RFOP's, noting only that the mail delivered to one respondent, James Terrance Webster, was returned unopened. The representative of the corporate respondent advised the Tribunal in a December 12, 2014 letter that the respondent James Terrance Webster has died.

Law and Analysis

Reactivation

6Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure states:

14.4 Where an Application was deferred pending the outcome of another legal proceeding, a request to proceed under Rule 14.3 must be filed no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding, must set out the date the other legal proceeding concluded and include a copy of the decision or order in the other proceeding, if any.

7The applicant filed the Request to reactivate within the 60 days required and the respondents have not objected.

8The applicant confirms that any outstanding Landlord and Tenant Board applications are complete or were withdrawn. The Application is reactivated.

Directions

9The Tribunal orders:

a. the Application is reactivated;

b. the applicant, by no later than February 4, 2015, shall provide submissions on whether or not she wishes to continue the application as against the personal respondent James Terrance Webster, and if she has any reason to believe that the corporate respondent's information about his death is incorrect; and

c. the respondents, by no later than February 4, 2015, shall provide any Form 11 Response to a Request for Order During Proceedings they intend to provide in response to the applicant's Form 10 Requests for an Order During Proceedings requesting removal of the respondent Lisa Paskas and requesting permission to amend her Application to include a further reprisal claim.