Farooqi v. North Edge Properties Ltd., 2016 HRTO 1478

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Saba Farooqi

Applicant

-and-

North Edge Properties Ltd.

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Sara Farooqi

Applicant

-and-

North Edge Properties Ltd.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard Date: November 17, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1478 Indexed as: Farooqi v. North Edge Properties Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Saba Farooqi and Sara Farooqi, Applicants

Sara Farooqi, Representative

North Edge Properties Ltd., Respondent

Timothy Duggan, Counsel

Introduction

1These Applications were filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code").

2The respondent is a company that, among other things, provides property management services to residential landlords in the Greater Toronto Area.

3The applicant Saba Farooqi rents an apartment in a building managed by the respondent. The applicant Sara Farooqi is the mother of Saba Farooqi. Both applicants reside in the same apartment.

4On May 17, 2016, the applicants filed respective Applications against the respondent alleging discrimination with respect to housing and goods, services and facilities because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and sex.

5On October 7, 2016, the applicants filed respective Requests for an Order During Proceedings ("RFOPs"), requesting as follows:

1. To have the Applications heard together ("request for consolidation");
2. The name and contact information of the landlord to be disclosed and to add the landlord as a respondent to the Application ("request for identification of the landlord");
3. To add Marty Roth as an individual respondent ("request to add individual respondent");
4. The production of all work orders submitted to the respondent in respect of the unit since the beginning of the applicants' tenancy ("request for production"); and
5. An extension of time until January 21, 2017, to reply to the Responses filed by the respondent ("request for extension").

6On November 7, 2016, the respondent filed its Response to the RFOPs and a Request for Summary Hearing. However, the time to file a Response to the Request for Summary Hearing has not passed, and I do not address this request in this Interim Decision.

7The applicants' requests are addressed separately.

Request for Consolidation

8Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure states that, in order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may consolidate or hear applications together.

9In this case, the Applications involve the same parties, the same subject matter, and the same type of alleged discrimination that arises out of the same set of facts and piece of governing legislation.

10In addition, the respondent consents to the request for consolidation.

11Accordingly, the request for consolidation is granted and the Applications will be heard together.

Request for Identification of the Landlord

12The applicants submit that they intended to name the landlord as a respondent. The applicants maintain that it appears, from the Response, that the respondent is not the landlord but a company that, among other things, provides property management services to residential landlords. As a result, the applicants request the name of the landlord and contact information.

13In its Response to the request for identification of the landlord, the respondent confirms that it is the landlord and, pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, which governs the relationship between the respondent and the applicants, the landlord can be the owner of the rental unit or any other person who permits occupancy of a rental unit.

14I am satisfied that the respondent is the landlord and I make no further determination on this issue.

Request to Add Individual Respondent

15The applicants wish to add Marty Roth as an individual respondent because he was the respondent's president at the time of the alleged incidents.

16The respondent argues that Mr. Roth had no involvement with this matter and that the Applications make no mention of any involvement by Mr. Roth. Further, and in any event, the respondent maintains that if Mr. Roth is liable at all, the respondent will assume liability for him, as the respondent was the landlord at the time of the incidents.

17The Tribunal held in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services, 2009 HRTO 1513, that when determining a request to add a respondent, the Tribunal should consider the following three questions:

(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?

18The first stage of the analysis involves considering whether there are allegations made in the Application that could lead to a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code. At the second stage, the Tribunal applies the factors set out in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31 at para. 5, which focus principally on whether there is an organization that is part of the proceeding and is able to take responsibility for the conduct, and whether the conduct of the individual respondent is a central issue in the proceedings. At the third stage, the Tribunal may consider a variety of factors, including the effects on the hearing process of adding the proposed respondent, the reasons the proposed respondent was not named in the application or response, and prejudice to the other parties.

19In the present case, the Applications include no allegations that the proposed individual respondent subjected the applicants to discrimination based on their race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin or sex.

20In addition, the respondent has acknowledged that it is able and will take responsibility in the event that Mr. Roth is liable for conduct in violation of the Code.

21In the circumstances, the request to add Mr. Roth as an individual respondent is denied.

Request for production

22The applicants request the production of all work orders submitted for their unit since the beginning of their tenancy.

23The Tribunal has not scheduled the hearing in this matter. As the Tribunal has not issued the Notice of Hearing, nor has the deadline for disclosure (Rule 16.1) passed, the Tribunal will not review the applicants' request for production at this time, as it is premature. The applicants may write to the Tribunal, copying the other parties, following the deadline for disclosure if they wish to renew the request.

24The request for production of work orders is denied at this time.

Request for Extension

25The applicants request an extension to file a Reply until January 21, 2017 because they need the information requested in the RFOPs to reply.

26As the respondent is not required at this time to produce anything further, there is no reason to grant the extension request until January 21, 2017.

27The Reply in Application 2016-24392-I was due October 12, 2016, and the Reply in Application 2016-24393-I was due October 21, 2016. As these dates have passed and the failure to file the Reply was due to the Tribunal's process, I grant an extension to file a Reply that is consistent with the Rules of Procedure.

28Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure provide that a reply must be filed with the Tribunal and delivered to the other parties no later than 14 days after the Response was sent to the applicant.

29The Tribunal grants an extension to file a Reply within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

Order

30For all these reasons, the Tribunal orders as follows:

1. The request for consolidation of Applications 2016-24392-I and 2016-24393-I is granted and the Applications will be heard together;
2. The request to add Marty Roth as an individual respondent is denied;
3. The request for production of all work orders submitted for the applicants' unit since the beginning of their tenancy is denied as premature;
4. The applicants are ordered to file their Reply within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

31I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 17th day of November, 2016.

"Signed by"

Josée Bouchard

Vice-chair