Chalykoff v. Quality Living Housing Corporation, 2016 HRTO 748

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: June 1, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 748 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 was scheduled for May 24, 2016.

6On May 18, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceeding (Request) to amend the Application and for production of further documents from the respondent.

7As a result of timing of the Request, the Summary Hearing was adjourned to allow the respondents time to file a Response to the Request.

8The respondents filed their Response to the Request on May 24, 2016.

Amend Application

9The applicant seeks to amend her Application to add allegations of discrimination that she says she has experienced during the process of applying for an Addition to Household with the corporate respondent. She alleges that she made the Addition to Household application on December 15, 2015. The new allegations that she seeks to include cover events that occurred from December 2015 to May 2016. The allegations relate to the corporate respondent’s process in determining the Addition to Household application and the various requests for documents and information that were made to the applicant during this time period.

10The allegations set out in the Application as originally filed related to the applicant’s application for membership with the corporate respondent and an application for a subsidized unit in the corporate respondent’s housing co-operative. The allegations cover events that occurred from May 2014 to February 12, 2015.

11The respondents oppose the Request on the basis that allowing the amendment would expand the scope of the Application greatly, and would be unfair to them.

Analysis and Decision

12In determining requests to amend applications, the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed amendments, the reasons for the amendments, the timing of the request to amend, and the prejudice to the respondent. See, for example, Odell v. TTC, [2001] OHRBID No. 2, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926.

13Having considered these factors, I deny the applicant’s Request to amend the Application.

14The requested amendments are brand new allegations covering events that occurred after the allegations made through this Application. They are completely beyond the scope of these proceedings. If such amendments were allowed, it would be necessary to allow for opportunities for the parties to amend their Response and Reply documents, interview and prepare new witnesses and prepare new documents to rely on.

15Given that the applicant and one of her witnesses have already provided evidence, allowing the amendments would also necessitate re-opening the hearing to allow the applicant to provide her evidence in relation to these new allegations.

16Permitting these amendments to the Application would be inconsistent with the Tribunal’s mandate to provide for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of matters before it. Accordingly, the Request to amend the Application to add these allegations is denied.

Request for Production

17The documents that that applicant is requesting be produced are all related to the allegations that she sought to include as amendments to the Application.

18Having denied the Request to amend the Application, the documents listed in the Request for Production are not relevant to the allegations made in this Application. The Request is therefore denied.

Order

19The applicant’s Request to Amend the Application is denied.

20The applicant’s Request for an Order for production is denied.

21The Tribunal shall canvass the parties for a date for a rescheduling of a half-day Summary Hearing teleconference.