Poursina v. Southern Lights Co-operative Homes Inc., 2016 HRTO 1551

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sahar Poursina

Applicant

-and-

Southern Lights Co-operative Homes Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: December 2, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1551

Indexed as: Poursina v. Southern Lights Co-operative Homes Inc.

APPEARANCES

Sahar Poursina, Applicant

Self-represented

Southern Lights Co-operative Homes Inc., Respondent

Kaitlin Jagersky, Counsel

1This is an Application filed on March 3, 2015, alleging discrimination and harassment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation because of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, sexual harassment and sexual solicitation, and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The respondent operates a cooperative housing facility in Hamilton, Ontario. The applicant became a member of the respondent housing cooperative and commenced residing there in July 2011. The allegations raised in the Application fall into three broad categories: (1) the applicant alleges that she experienced sexual harassment and solicitations and other inappropriate comments by the handyman who did maintenance work at the respondent building and that the respondent failed to appropriately respond to those allegations (the “handyman issue”); (2) the applicant alleges discrimination and reprisal in relation to the respondent’s requirement that she remove a satellite dish that she had installed (the “satellite dish issue”); and (3) the applicant alleges that certain discriminatory comments were made to her by various Board members or other residents of the respondent housing cooperative.

3By Case Assessment Direction dated August 27, 2015, this matter was referred by the Tribunal for a preliminary hearing to address two issues raised by the respondent: (1) whether all or part of the Application should be dismissed for delay; and (2) whether all or part of the Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

4The preliminary hearing in this matter was held by teleconference on June 1, 2016, at which time I heard the applicant’s evidence regarding her explanation for any delay in raising the allegations set out in the Application, including affording respondent counsel an opportunity for cross-examination. I also heard oral submissions from the parties on the two issues to be addressed at the hearing, and have considered all material filed by the parties for the purpose of the preliminary hearing.

Delay

Was there a “series of incidents”?

5Section 34(1) of the Code requires that an application be made to the Tribunal within one year of the alleged incident of discrimination or, if there is a series of incidents, within one year of the last alleged incident in the series.

6As indicated above, the Application was filed with the Tribunal on March 3, 2015. Accordingly, I first need to consider whether there are any alleged incidents of discrimination raised in the Application that fall within the one-year period extending back to March 3, 2014.

7While the Application raises issues about certain requests for payment made by the respondent to the applicant in relation to her moving out of the housing cooperative in or about July 2014, these issues were the subject of a Small Claims Court action commenced by the respondent against the applicant, which I understand was resolved at mediation in that proceeding. As a result, in my view, any allegations relating to the respondent’s requests for these payments are not properly the subject of the Application before this Tribunal as they were dealt with in another proceeding and resolved.

8The only other alleged incident of discrimination within the one-year period prior to the filing of the Application is an allegation regarding an encounter between the applicant and a Board member of the respondent (“T.O.”), which is alleged to have occurred on or about March 20, 2014. The applicant alleges that she was in the elevator with her young son when T.O. got on the elevator and said that the applicant should be ashamed of herself for having called a membership meeting of the housing cooperative and losing a vote regarding the installation of her satellite dish. The applicant alleges that T.O. went on to say that the applicant had brought a lot of problems into the housing cooperative, that the applicant did not belong to the community, and that she needed to move out. The applicant alleges that T.O. said that she wished the respondent had never picked the applicant to come in to the housing cooperative to live, that this was a beautiful and peaceful housing cooperative, and that the applicant had brought a lot of problems since she moved in. The applicant alleges that as T.O. was getting off the elevator to go to the laundry room, T.O. yelled that the applicant needed to move out, that she needed to go back to her country because that is where she deserves to be, and that nobody in the housing cooperative likes the applicant. The applicant alleges that this incident was the subject of a complaint letter that she sent to the respondent’s Board of Directors on March 21, 2014, which the respondent failed to address. The respondent denies having received a copy of this complaint letter.

9The first issue for me to consider is whether this one timely alleged incident of discrimination forms part of a “series of incidents” within the meaning is s. 34(1)(b) of the Code that extends to and includes any of the allegations raised by the applicant in this proceeding that occurred more than one year prior to the filing of the Application.

10There are four other alleged incidents of discrimination that are of a similar nature or character to the alleged incident on or about March 20, 2014. The next most recent incident is alleged to have occurred sometime on or before January 6, 2014. The applicant alleges that another member of the respondent’s Board of Directors (“C.D.”) was in the applicant’s hallway walking towards another unit when he asked the applicant how she felt about losing the vote in the membership meeting regarding her satellite dish. The applicant alleges that she responded by saying that as a member of the Board of Directors, C.D. should be ashamed about what she regards as the Board of Directors’ continued harassment of her over the satellite dish. She alleges that C.D. replied by saying that she should have been a good immigrant and listened to the Board of Directors when they asked her to remove the satellite dish. She alleges that C.D. went on to say that the applicant and her son need to live in a place on Barton Street which is where they belong, and not in a nice housing cooperative like the respondent’s. She alleges that C.D. said that she needed to move out, and that he would make it his mission to force the applicant out. She alleges that C.D. then commented on her background and place of origin, saying that they are all thieves and take from the government. The applicant alleges that she told C.D. that the conversation was over, and that she would be filing a complaint against him with the Board of Directors. She alleges that C.D. laughed and said that he was on the Board of Directors. In the material before me is a copy of a complaint letter from the applicant to the Board of Directors dated January 6, 2014, regarding this alleged incident. Once again, the respondent denies having received this complaint letter.

11The next most recent alleged incidents are alleged to have occurred in August and October 2013 and involve another member of the housing cooperative (“L.S.”), who is alleged by the applicant to have a personal relationship with one of the respondent’s Board members. The first alleged incident involving L.S. is alleged to have occurred on August 5, 2013. The applicant alleges that she said “Hi” to L.S. when she saw her in the hallway, to which L.S. respondent by telling the applicant not to ever say “Hi” to her and calling the applicant a “bitch”. The applicant alleges that she replied by telling L.S. that was rude and that she needs to be pleasant with all neighbours. The applicant alleges that L.S. then said that she hates the applicant and wishes that the applicant never lived in the housing cooperative with her.

12The next alleged incident involving L.S. is alleged to have occurred on or before August 16, 2013. The applicant states that she was getting out of the elevator with a dry big plant in her hands to put in the garbage room. She states that L.S. was standing in front of the elevator waiting to get in. The applicant alleges that L.S. told her to get out of the way, that the applicant does not belong here, that the applicant has to move out, that L.S. does not like immigrants like the applicant, that she hates the applicant, and that she will make this place a living hell for the applicant if the applicant does not move out. The applicant alleges that she responded by saying that it was not L.S.’s business and that she can live anywhere she likes. The applicant alleges that L.S. became furious and pushed the flower pot into the applicant’s face, causing scratches to the applicant’s face. The applicant alleges that L.S. followed her into the garbage room and called the applicant a “bitch” and other derogatory names, said that she would force the applicant to move out as she is useless and does nothing around the housing cooperative, and that the applicant is lazy just like other immigrants from the applicant’s country who come to Canada. The applicant states that she contacted the police regarding this alleged incident, although no charges were laid.

13The next alleged incident involving L.S. is alleged to have occurred on or before October 16, 2013. The applicant alleges that she was going out as L.S. was standing in the hallway, when L.S. said that the applicant had no right to live at the housing cooperative and needed to move out. The applicant alleges that L.S. again called her a “bitch” in front of her young son, and said that the applicant was a disgrace to the housing cooperative.

14These three alleged incidents also are the subject of complaint letters by the applicant to the Board of Directors dated August 5, August 16 and October 16, 2013. Once again, the respondent denies having received any of these complaint letters.

15In determining whether prior alleged incidents form part of a “series of incidents”, the Tribunal considers the following factors:

a. What is the last alleged incident of discrimination to which the Application relates?

b. Do the allegations relate to a series of separate and independent incidents of discrimination or do they relate to the continuing effect of a single incident of discrimination?

c. What is the nature or character of the alleged discrimination and is it part of a pattern or series of incidents of a similar nature or character?

d. What is the temporal gap between alleged incidents of discrimination?

See Garrie v. Janus Joan Inc., 2012 HRTO 1955 at para. 30.

16With regard to factor (c), a useful summary of the Tribunal’s approach is as follows:

When assessing whether the allegations relate to a “series of incidents”, the Tribunal will generally consider the nature of the events and whether they may reasonably be viewed as a pattern of conduct or are comprised of incidents relating to discrete and separate issues without some connection or nexus. See, for example, Baisa v. Skills for Change, 2010 HRTO 1621. In Pakarian v. Chen, 2010 HRTO 457 the Tribunal defined the word “series” as “a number of things or events of the same class coming one after another in spatial or temporal succession”. In my view a “series of incidents” may be considered to exist where the incidents share a common theme, similar parties and/or circumstances. See Twyne v. Dominion Colour Corporation, 2013 HRTO 1769.

17With regard to factor (d), this Tribunal has held that a gap of more than one year between alleged incidents generally will be considered to interrupt the series: see for example Savage v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2010 HRTO 1360, and Chintaman v. Toronto District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1225. This should not be regarded as a rigid rule: Henry v. Waterloo (Regional Municipality), 2011 HRTO 1927. However, where there is a significant gap between alleged incidents, this Tribunal nonetheless will find that the series is broken: Christie v. Trent University, 2013 HRTO 952.

18In my view, these alleged incidents from the period from August 2013 to March 2014 are properly considered a “series of incidents” within the meaning of s. 34(1)(b) of the Code. While these alleged comments were made by three different people, they are alleged to have been made by two members of the respondent’s Board of Directors and another member of the housing cooperative who is alleged to have a personal relationship with a member of the respondent’s Board of Directors. They also share a common theme, which is that as an immigrant from the applicant’s country of origin, she does not deserve to live in the respondent housing cooperative and needs to move out, as well as making alleged threats to force the applicant to leave and other derogatory comments about the applicant. They also are alleged to have occurred within an eight-month period and the largest temporal gap between any of these alleged incidents is less than three months.

19Accordingly, I find that the comments alleged to have been made to the applicant by L.S., C.D. and T.O. form a “series of incidents” which extends to and includes a last alleged incident that occurred within the one-year period prior to the filing of the Application. As a result, these allegations are not dismissed for delay.

20The next question is whether these alleged incidents properly can be regarded as forming part of a “series of incidents” that also encompasses the applicant’s allegations regarding the handyman and the satellite dish.

21The applicant’s allegations regarding the handyman stem from a complaint that she made to the respondent’s Board of Directors dated September 17, 2012. No allegations of sexual harassment or solicitation by the handyman were raised by the applicant in this initial complaint, although the complaint did raise an allegation that the handyman had made comments about people in cooperative housing taking advantage of the government and scamming the government. The respondent’s Board of Directors convened a meeting to address this complaint on October 24, 2012. At that meeting, the applicant raised allegations of sexual harassment and sexual solicitation against the handyman that pre-dated the incident that was the subject of her September 17, 2012 complaint. As the Board of Directors had only raised with the handyman the issues as set out in the applicant’s September 17, 2012 complaint and had only scheduled a limited time to deal with the issue on October 24, 2012, the Board of Directors requested that the applicant attend a further meeting with the Board on October 30, 2012, to provide further information regarding her allegations. The applicant refused to attend this further meeting with the Board, based upon how she alleges she was treated at the meeting on October 24, 2012.

22The Board of Directors proceeded to meet with the handyman on November 2, 2012, to obtain his response to the applicant’s further allegations, which he largely denied. The Board of Directors then issued a letter to the applicant dated November 5, 2012, indicating that it did not have a sufficient basis to justify terminating the handyman’s services, but that if any further work was required in the applicant’s unit, a Board member would attend with the handyman and remain there until the work was completed.

23The applicant alleges that there was a further incident with the handyman on December 21, 2012, when she saw him in the parking lot. She alleges that the handyman came out of his car and started telling her what a beautiful person she is, that he was whistling, and that he said that he would like to rub his crotch up against her and have sex with her all night. The applicant alleges that she told the handyman to go away, and that he was laughing as she drove off. The applicant states that she called the police about this alleged incident, but was advised that it needed to be addressed by the respondent’s Board of Directors. In the material before me is a complaint letter dated December 22, 2012 by the applicant to the Board of Directors regarding this alleged incident.

24In the Application, the applicant made a general allegation that the sexual harassment by the handyman continued, alleging that he would see her in the hallway or getting into the elevator or in the parking lot, and he would whistle or make sexual comments about how sexy she is when she gets angry. At the preliminary hearing, the applicant testified that the last of these alleged incidents occurred sometime in the spring or summer of 2013, more than one year before she filed the Application.

25With regard to the satellite dish issue, the material before me indicates that this was first raised with the applicant as an issue as a result of an annual inspection of her unit conducted on September 5, 2012. The respondent sent a letter to the applicant dated September 24, 2012, raising this issue and requiring her to remove the satellite dish by October 9, 2012. The applicant responded by letter dated September 26, 2012, requesting time to install the satellite dish properly. This request was denied by the Board of Directors at a meeting held on November 19, 2012, as communicated to the applicant by letter dated November 26, 2012, to which the applicant replied by letter dated November 27, 2012. The matter was considered further by the Board of Directors at a meeting held on December 12, 2012, and a further letter was sent to the applicant on December 14, 2012, requiring proper removal and re-installation of the satellite dish by December 21, 2012.

26Further correspondence on this issue was exchanged, culminating in a letter from the applicant to the Board of Directors on December 20, 2012, requesting further time to deal with the satellite dish issue. In particular, the applicant requested that she be granted until the end of April 2013 to remove her satellite dish and repair her balcony professionally. No further action was taken by the respondent on this issue until May 24, 2013, when the respondent wrote to the applicant to request that a date be arranged prior to the next Board of Directors meeting on June 17, 2013 for two Board members to come into the applicant’s unit and inspect the repairs. A further letter was sent by the respondent to the applicant on June 28, 2013, requiring her to complete the removal and repairs by July 31, 2013. In response, the applicant made a request to requisition a general meeting of the membership of the housing cooperative to address this issue. This general meeting was held on August 14, 2013, when a motion was passed by the membership requiring the applicant to remove the existing satellite dish, repair the concrete, and re-install the satellite dish in a fashion that does not compromise the concrete and balcony by October 14, 2013.

27It is clear that the applicant’s allegations regarding the handyman and the satellite dish are of a very different nature and character than her allegations about the comments made by the two Board members and the other member of the housing cooperative. As indicated above, the essence of the latter allegations relates to comments about the applicant’s status as an immigrant from a particular country, that she did not belong at the housing cooperative and needed to move out, and other derogatory matters. The allegations regarding the handyman center on allegations of sexual harassment and sexual solicitation, and the alleged failure of the Board of Directors to take appropriate steps to address the applicant’s complaints. The allegation regarding the satellite dish appears to be twofold: first, that the applicant was being targeted by the Board of Directors because of her immigrant status and country of origin in being asked to remove and re-install her satellite dish when other members of the housing cooperative also had satellite dishes; and second, that the applicant was being targeted as a reprisal for having raised complaints about the handyman. In my view, the very different nature and character of the allegations regarding the handyman and the satellite dish prevent them from being properly regarded as part of a “series of incidents” that extends to and includes the timely incident from March 2014.

28I appreciate that several of the alleged comments which have been found to constitute a “series of incidents” and therefore to be timely are alleged to include specific reference to the results of the general membership meeting, and at least one alleged comment was that the applicant should have followed the Board’s direction “like a good immigrant”. However, in my view, the mere mentioning of the result of the general membership meeting in the alleged comments is not a sufficient basis, in and of itself, to create a link between the alleged comments and the satellite dish issue, given the very different nature and character of these allegations.

29Accordingly, I find that the allegations relating to the handyman and the satellite dish do not form part of a “series of incidents” that extends to and includes a timely allegation. As a result, I need to consider whether these allegations should be dismissed for delay.

Was the delay “incurred in good faith”?

30If an allegation or allegations raised in an application are untimely and do not form part of a series of incidents that extend to and include a timely allegation, then it is the applicant’s onus to satisfy the Tribunal that the delay in raising the prior allegations was “incurred in good faith” within the meaning of s. 34(2) of the Code. This requires that the applicant provide some reasonable explanation for the delay: Imrie-Howlett v. Peel District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1339. In Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241, this Tribunal held that an applicant is required to show something more than simply an absence of bad faith. In Miller, above, it was held that the one-year time limit is consistent with the policy objective that human rights claims should be dealt with expeditiously, and requires an applicant to act with due diligence when they seek to pursue a human rights claim.

31The applicant states that she was not aware of her ability to file a human rights application with this Tribunal until she consulted with a lawyer sometime after leaving the housing cooperative in July 2014. However, this Tribunal has consistently found that ignorance of one’s rights under the Code and a failure to make inquiries about one’s rights is not sufficient to establish that delay was incurred in good faith. As stated in Lafleur v. Kimberley Scott, 2009 HRTO 1141:

To establish that delay in pursuing one’s rights has been incurred in good faith, it must be shown that the applicant acted honestly and with no ulterior motive. (Hart v. Hart (1990), 1990 CanLII 12268 (ON HCJ), 27 R.F.L. (3D) 419 (Ont. U.F.C.), cited in Scherer v Scherer 2002 CanLII 44920 (ON CA), (2002) 59 OR (3d) 393 (O.C.A.). Delay has been found not to have been incurred in good faith where it was due to wilful blindness to the need to make inquiries about one’s rights: Webster v Webster Estate, 2006 CanLII 22941 (ON SC), [2006] OJ No. 2749 (ON S.C.). The courts have held that “failure to act in ignorance of one’s rights may, in some circumstances, amount to “good faith”. However, … it is not enough for a party who must establish good faith to say that he or she was ignorant of their rights. They must also establish that they had no reason to make enquiries about those rights.” (Busch v Amos, 1994 CanLII 7454 (ON CTGD), [1994] OJ No. 2975 (Ct. J. (Gen. Div.), cited in Scherer, supra).

32In the instant case, the applicant had every reason to make inquiries about her rights, and she did in fact make such inquiries at the time. She filed complaints with the Board of Directors, she called the police, and she called the City of Hamilton. What she did not do was to contact legal counsel in a timely manner. In my view, this is a situation where the applicant’s ignorance of her ability to file a human rights application is properly attributable to her failure to make inquiries about her rights when she had every reason to do so.

33The applicant also relies upon a letter she received from a member of the respondent’s Board of Directors, T.O., dated November 2, 2013, which states that the applicant is not allowed under any circumstances to talk to anyone about the issue relating to the handyman, that the applicant was told in the meeting on October 24, 2012 that she was not to discuss this issue with anyone, and that the issue should stay confidential as long as the applicant lived in the housing cooperative. This letter was written further to a discussion between the applicant and T.O. regarding this issue, and there is an indication in the letter that the discussion may have included potential breach of confidentiality on this issue by a member or members of the Board of Directors. In this context, while I appreciate that this letter could reasonably have been understood by the applicant to prevent her from raising or discussing the issue with other members of the housing cooperative, in my view this letter cannot reasonably be interpreted or relied upon by the applicant to prevent her from seeking legal counsel.

34The applicant also submits that she waited until after she had left the respondent housing cooperative before filing her Application, because she feared the consequences of filing a human rights application while she still lived there. I appreciate that it is difficult for an occupant in a housing facility (or for an employee who is still employed with a respondent) to file a human rights application against their current housing provider (or employer). However, the Code provides protection for such persons against a housing provider (or employer) engaging in reprisal or retaliation against them for seeking to claim and enforce their rights under the Code: see s. 8. The fact of an ongoing relationship with a housing provider or employer has not been regarded by this Tribunal as a sufficient explanation to justify delay in filing an application.

35There is one additional issue raised in the Application that I regard as being subsidiary to the handyman and satellite dish issues, namely the directive from the respondent’s Board of Directors in January 2013 that the applicant not contact the respondent’s office directly by telephone, e-mail or in person, but rather should raise any issues through the Board liaison. This directive was provided as a result of what the Board of Directors regarded as certain accusations that had been made by the applicant against the Housing Coordinator. There was a further incident in April 2013 when the applicant went to the respondent’s office to deliver certain information to the Housing Coordinator, as a result of which the Board renewed its directive. To the extent that this issue also forms part of the applicant’s allegations of discrimination against the respondent, this allegation arises from events that occurred more than one year prior to the filing of the Application and cannot properly be considered to form part of a series of incidents that extends to and includes the allegations regarding the comments alleged to have been made by L.S., C.D. and T.O. As a result, this allegation also is dismissed for delay.

36As a result, I find that the allegations in the Application regarding the handyman and the satellite dish are untimely and that the applicant has failed to provide a sufficient explanation to justify her delay in raising these allegations, such that her delay cannot be regarded as having been incurred in good faith within the meaning of s. 34(2) of the Code. Accordingly, these allegations are dismissed for delay.

Reasonable prospect of success

37As a consequence of the foregoing ruling, the only allegations that remain in this proceeding are the applicant’s allegations regarding the comments alleged to have been made by L.S., C.D. and T.O. during the period from August 2013 to March 2014. These allegations do not relate to any issue of alleged sexual harassment or solicitation, or to any allegation of reprisal for having sought to claim or enforce rights under the Code. Accordingly, those grounds as alleged in the Application have been dismissed.

38I will now turn to an assessment of whether the allegations relating to the comments alleged to have been made by L.S., C.D. and T.O. should be dismissed at this stage of the proceeding as having no reasonable prospect of success. In my view, they should not. The applicant’s allegations on their face, if believed, clearly make a link or connection to the applicant’s race, ancestry, place of origin and/or ethnic origin. While I appreciate that an issue of credibility may arise in this proceeding as to whether or not the comments were made as alleged, that is a matter that is not appropriately addressed at a preliminary hearing and is best left for determination on the basis of oral evidence and cross-examination at a hearing on the merits or substance of the allegations.

39In terms of the respondent’s potential legal liability for these alleged comments, if they are found to have been made, an issue will arise in this proceeding as to whether any such comments are properly regarded as mere “harassment” within the meaning of s. 2(2) of the Code, or whether they properly can be regarded as combining to create a poisoned housing environment for the applicant, which has been held to constitute discrimination and a violation of s. 2(1) of the Code.

40In the employment context, the Courts have found that a poisoned work environment will be created in two circumstances: (1) where there has been serious wrongful behaviour sufficient to create a hostile or intolerable work environment that is persistent or repeated; or (2) where there has been a particularly egregious, stand-alone incident: see General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. Johnson, 2013 ONCA 502 at paras. 66-67, as adopted in the human rights context by Crêpe It Up! v. Hamilton, 2014 ONSC 6721 at paras. 18-19. These principles apply equally to the creation of a poisoned housing environment. In the instant case, if it is found that the alleged comments were made and they are regarded as sufficient to create a poisoned housing environment, then that would constitute a violation of s. 2(1) of the Code for which the respondent is deemed to be liable pursuant to s. 46.3(1).

41On the other hand, even if the comments are found to amount to mere “harassment” in violation of s. 2(2) of the Code and not to meet the threshold for finding a poisoned housing environment, the respondent still could potentially be found liable for these comments notwithstanding the exclusion of deemed corporate liability for violations of s. 2(2) as set out in s. 46.3(1). Given that two of the individuals who are alleged to have made the comments are members of the respondent’s Board of Directors, an issue may arise at the hearing as to whether they form part of the “directing mind” of the respondent, such that the respondent is directly liable for their actions. In addition, if it is found that the applicant in fact brought these alleged incidents to the attention of the Board of Directors, then the respondent also may be liable if it failed to take reasonable steps to address or respond to these alleged incidents.

42In its submissions at the preliminary hearing, the respondent asked that I draw an adverse inference from the applicant’s failure to disclose her complaint letters to the respondent regarding the alleged comments at an earlier time, and the fact that she has no computer record to establish when these letters were prepared. The respondent’s position is that it never received any such complaint letters, and it alleges that they have been fabricated by the applicant. Prior to the preliminary hearing, in response to the respondent’s position, I did direct the applicant to provide information from her computer regarding the date when these complaint letters were created. In response, the applicant stated that these letters had been prepared on an old computer, which she disposed of at the time she left the housing cooperative in July 2014.

43In my view, any question regarding the authenticity of these complaint letters and issue of whether in fact they were received by the respondent are matters best left for determination at the hearing on the merits, on the basis of a full evidentiary record and cross-examination. I note that the applicant’s materials includes a document dated May 7, 2014 which is addressed to the Board of Directors and details the reasons why the applicant believes she was being forced to leave the housing cooperative. At point (8) of this letter, the applicant makes reference to having written numerous letters to the Board regarding the allegations that remain at issue in this proceeding, and states that the Board did nothing about it. It may be that the respondent’s position is that it did not receive that letter either. In any event, that is best left for the hearing on the merits.

44As a result, I find that there is an insufficient basis for me to find that the allegations regarding the comments alleged to have been made by L.S., C.D. and T.O. have no reasonable prospect of success. Accordingly, these allegations will proceed to a full hearing on the merits.

45I note that the Response as filed by the respondent does not specifically address the remaining allegations. Accordingly, within 35 calendar days of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondent shall serve and file an Addendum to its Response setting out its specific response and position in relation to the remaining allegations. The applicant shall have a further 7 calendar days to serve and file an Addendum to her Reply.

ORDER

46For all of the foregoing reasons, I hereby make the following order:

a. The allegations set out in the Application regarding alleged violations of the Code against the applicant arising from the conduct of the handyman and in relation to the satellite dish are hereby dismissed for delay;

b. The allegations regarding the comments alleged to have been made by L.S., C.D. and T.O. as set out in paras. 8 and 10 to 14 above are not dismissed and shall proceed to a full hearing on the merits; and

c. Within 35 calendar days of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondent shall serve and file an Addendum to its Response setting out its specific response and position in relation to the remaining allegations. The applicant shall have a further 7 calendar days to serve and file an Addendum to her Reply in response to the respondent’s Addendum.