Nasrin Islam v. York Condominium Corporation (YCC) #42, 2016 HRTO 699

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Nasrin Islam

Applicant

-and-

York Condominium Corporation (YCC) #42, Sandeep Gosal, Patricia St. Louis, Amarjit Grewal, Darryl Welsh and Joseph Natale

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Khurana

Date: May 24, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 699

Indexed as: Islam v. York Condominium Corporation #42

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Nasrim Islam, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant's request to amend her Application to add an additional respondent.

2The applicant filed a Form 10 Request for Order During Proceedings ("Request") seeking to add Mr. Natale as an individual respondent in these proceedings. The organizational respondent, the individual respondents and the proposed individual respondent did not file a response to the Request for Order.

3The 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?

4The application of the first stage 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 ("Persaud"), 2008 HRTO 31, at para. 5, which focus principally on whether there is an organization that is part of the proceeding, which is able to take responsibility for the conduct, and whether the conduct of the individual respondent is a central issue in the proceedings. The factors from Persaud, above, are applicable to both requests to add individual respondents and requests to remove them. 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.

5In the present case, the Application includes allegations that the proposed respondent, who was the property manager, discriminated against her by issuing a trespass notice. In Schedule "A" to the Response, the organizational respondent acknowledges at paragraph 21 that the property manager determined it was necessary to issue the applicant a notice of trespass to prevent her from attending meetings of the YCC #42's Board of Directors. The applicant also listed Joseph Natale in her Application as being the "Contact Person" and property manager for the organizational respondent.

6I find it appropriate to add Joseph Natale as an individual respondent to the Application. There are allegations in the Application, which depending on the circumstances, could be the subject of findings or a Tribunal order. The issuance of the trespass notice is one of two main events alleged in the Application. The proposed respondent appears to have been the individual who issued the trespass notice. There is no apparent prejudice to any party in adding the proposed respondent and the respondents provided no response to the Request.

7In the circumstances, it appears that it would be appropriate to add the proposed individual respondent as a party to the proceedings.

8The applicant's Request for Order is granted and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

9The Tribunal will provide Mr. Natale with a copy of the Application, the respondents' Responses and the applicant's Reply, along with a copy of this Interim Decision. He is directed to file a Response to the Application (in Form 2) not later than 35 days after the Application is delivered to him.

10I am not seized of this matter.