Sheila Margaret Chalykoff v. Quality Living Housing Corporation, Patricia Turgeon and Carol McMurtry, 2016 HRTO 635

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sheila Margaret Chalykoff Applicant

-and-

Quality Living Housing Corporation, Patricia Turgeon and Carol McMurtry Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: May 11, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 635 Indexed as: Chalykoff v Quality Living Housing Cooperative

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sheila Chalykoff, Applicant Self-represented

Quality Living Housing Cooperative, Respondent Marisa Gilmore, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The Tribunal has held one full day of hearing during which time the applicant has provided extensive evidence about her allegations. The applicant’s testimony and that of one of her witnesses has now concluded.

3After hearing of this part of the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal on its own initiative decided to hold a Summary Hearing to determine whether there was a reasonable prospect that the Application could succeed.

4On February 23, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction in which it canvassed dates from the parties for a teleconference Summary Hearing. The Tribunal also invited the parties to make submissions on whether the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.

5The Summary Hearing teleconference is now scheduled for May 24, 2016.

6On April 19, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceeding (Request) for production of further documents from the respondent.

Request for Production

7The applicant states that her reason for making this Request for production is that she believes the respondents have withheld documents that are relevant to her Application.

8As is noted above, the hearing on the merits of this Application has commenced and the applicant has presented extensive evidence. Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure requires each party to deliver to every other party a list and copy of all arguably relevant documents in its possession. In this Application, and as indicated in the Notice of Hearing, the date for completing this step of disclosure was September 21, 2015. It is at this stage of the Tribunal process that the applicant should have made her request for disclosure of the documents she is now requesting. If there were documents that she believed were relevant to her Application and which were not disclosed to her by the respondents by September 21, 2015, she should have requested the respondents to provide those documents at that time and if they failed to comply with her request, then she could have made a Request to the Tribunal for a production order.

9Rule 16.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure requires each party to deliver to every other party and to file with the Tribunal a copy of all documents they intend to rely on at the hearing of the Application. In this Application, and as indicated in the Notice of Hearing, the date for filing these documents was January 4, 2016.

10As was indicated in the February 23, 2016, Case Assessment Direction, the parties shall not produce evidence for the Summary Hearing.

11The applicant is out of time to make any Request for production.

Order

12The applicant’s Request for an Order for production is denied.