Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Lisa Parise Applicant
-and-
Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2054, Nadian-Harris Property Management, Kaylee Arnold, Jason Yu and Robert Soth Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Truemner
Indexed as: Parise v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2054
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Lisa Parise, Applicant Self-represented
introduction
1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to amend her Application.
2The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleged that the respondents failed to accommodate her special needs arising from her disability, and would not allow her to keep in her condominium unit two dogs who she alleges were medically necessary. She also believes that the respondents harassed her and reprised against her because of her efforts to enforce what she understood to be a right to keep her dogs.
request to amend
3On July 19, 2017, the applicant sought to amend the Application to add an additional act of reprisal related to the corporate respondent’s charge of legal fees related to the dogs. The charges were levied against the new owners of the unit which the applicant sold before she became aware that the corporate respondent intended to collect the fees from her or a subsequent owner of the unit. The respondents consented to the amendment; however, the Tribunal issued directions for the applicant to file submissions which explain why the fees charged to the unit after it was sold to new owners adversely affect her.
4The applicant has filed those submissions.
decision
5In 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.
6Having considered the factors set out above, in particular the nature and reasons for the proposed amendments, I deny the applicant’s request to amend the Application. The applicant’s recently filed submissions confirm that she is not being charged the fees, and I therefore find her request to be premature. While she may one day in the future find herself defending a claim by the new owners of her unit for that charge, she does not appear to be adversely affected by the charge at this time.
order
7For the reasons set out above, the applicant’s request to amend the Application is denied.
next steps
8The respondents must file their Response (Form 2) by October 13, 2017, and ensure that they indicate whether they are willing to participate in mediation in order that the parties might come to an agreement to settle the Application without a hearing. The Application indicates that the applicant is willing to try mediation, and, if the respondents indicate on their Response form that they are also willing, the Tribunal will then schedule mediation. Issues such as the legal charge to the new owners of the unit might be addressed at any mediation even though they do not form an allegation in the Application. The applicant should note that even if mediation is scheduled after the respondents file their Response, she must file a timely Reply to the Response as she will be directed to do when the Response is sent to her.
Dated at Toronto, this 18th day of September, 2017.
“Signed By”
Mary Truemner Vice-chair