Lafond v. Webber, 2017 HRTO 1022

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angele Lafond

Applicant

-and-

Angela Webber and Fiaaz Walji

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Khurana
Date: August 9, 2017
Citation: 2017 HRTO 1022
Indexed as: Lafond v. Webber

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Angele Lafond, Applicant
Self-represented

1This Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to housing because of disability, creed, sex, family status and marital status. The applicant alleges that the respondents denied her housing because they were aware of her child’s disability, and because of personal information she disclosed to them about trauma she experienced and the impact on her financial situation. She also alleges that the respondents did not consider her application for housing because she is a single mother.

2The Application has not yet been served on the respondents.

3The applicant filed a Request to Expedite the Application (Form 14) and a Request for Interim Remedy (Form 16) immediately after filing her Application (the “Requests”).

4On June 8, 2017, the Registrar wrote to the applicant, advising that she did not provide a declaration signed by a person with direct first-hand knowledge detailing all of the facts supporting the Requests, as required by Rules 21.2 and 23.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The letter also advised that in the absence of these declarations, the Tribunal would take no further action with regards to the applicant’s Requests.

5The applicant did not respond or submit the requisite declarations.

6Both Requests are denied for the reasons set out below.

REQUEST TO EXPEDITE

7The applicant indicates that the property she sought to rent is still available. She submits that expediting the Tribunal’s process would allow that the property to be leased to her under the same conditions originally discussed with the respondents. If her Request to Expedite is denied, the applicant submits that she will find herself homeless, facing additional costs for lodging and storage, and that her former spouse will seek full custody of their children.

8The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal’s letter or file the declarations. It also appears that her Request is moot as she has secured housing effective August 1, 2017. However, even if the applicant had filed the necessary declarations, I would deny her Request.

9Rule 21.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that an applicant may request that the Tribunal deal with an application on an expedited basis in circumstances which require an urgent resolution of the issues in dispute.

10In Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 53 at para. 9, the Tribunal held that, for a request to expedite to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate that the circumstances are truly urgent. Applicants must show that the circumstances require the resolution of the dispute in a particularly rapid manner as compared with the time required to complete the Tribunal’s regular process.

11Based on the information provided by the applicant I am not satisfied that it is necessary to the fair just and expeditious resolution of this Application that it must be taken out of the normal Tribunal process with the potential impacts on this proceeding as well as all of the other applications which will necessarily be impacted.

REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM REMEDY

12The applicant seeks an order for the property to be leased to her or an order preventing the respondents from renting or selling the property until the Application is heard. In the alternative, she seeks $5000 for lost wages for the month of May when she did not work because she was looking for alternative housing. She submits that her children risk becoming homeless and that the respondents could rent or sell the property to someone else in the event her Request is not granted.

13Rule 23.5 requires that a party seeking an interim remedy must file one or more statutory declarations in support of her Request. The applicant has not done so and for that reason alone the Request ought to be denied.

14However, in considering the merits of the Request, I note that the Tribunal considers that the granting of an interim remedy is an extraordinary step. It involves requiring the respondents to take certain actions prior to a hearing on the merits of the Application and before any violation of the Code has been proven.

15The conditions for awarding an interim remedy are set out as follows in Rule 23.2:

The Tribunal may grant an interim remedy where it is satisfied that:

a) the Application appears to have merit;

b) the balance of harm or convenience favours granting the interim remedy requested; and,

c) it is just and appropriate in the circumstances to do so.

16In TA v. 60 Montclair, 2009 HRTO 369 at para. 23, the Tribunal held that the fundamental consideration in determining whether to award an interim remedy is “whether an interim remedy is necessary to facilitate and ensure the Tribunal is able to award a complete, appropriate and effective remedy at the end of a hearing, should a violation of the Code be found.”

17Normally, the Tribunal’s power to order respondents to do, or refrain from doing something, is contingent upon a finding that they have violated the Code. Interim remedies are extraordinary in that they constitute an order to do, or refrain from doing something, in the absence of a finding that the Code has been violated. For this reason, an applicant bears a “significant onus” in establishing that the Tribunal should award an interim remedy: TA, supra.

18Again, while it appears that the applicant’s Request for Interim Remedy is moot as she secured alternate housing as of August 1st, in any event I am not satisfied that the applicant has met the significant onus of establishing that her Request for Interim Remedy meets the criteria in Rule 23.2 and is necessary to further the remedial objects of the Code. Assuming, without deciding, that the Application appears to have merit and meets the first criterion for granting an interim remedy, I am not satisfied that it has been established that the balance of harm or convenience favours granting the interim remedy requested, or that it is just and appropriate in the circumstances to do so. In particular, the applicant has not identified reasons why the property owned by the respondents is the only option available to her and her family.

19Finally, I find that there is no basis to conclude that the Tribunal’s ability to remedy any alleged breach of the Code that might be found, including an order for damages, would be impaired if the Request is not granted.

NEXT STEPS

20A copy of the Application will be delivered with this Interim Decision. The respondent will be required to file a response within 35 days of receiving the Application.

21In her Application the applicant did not indicate that she was interested in mediation. If the applicant is willing to participate in voluntary mediation and both parties agree, the Tribunal will schedule a mediation. Otherwise, the Application will proceed to a hearing.

ORDER

22The applicant’s Requests to Expedite Proceedings and Request for an Interim Remedy are denied.

23A copy of the Application will be delivered with this Interim Decision. The respondent will be required to file a response within 35 days of receiving the Application.

24I am not seized.