Flemington v. Wentworth Standard Condominium Corporation #379, 2017 HRTO 1357

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Marjorie Flemington

Applicant

-and-

Wentworth Standard Condominium Corporation #379, Phil DiFrancesco and Darvin Puhl

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: October 13, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1357

Indexed as: Flemington v. Wentworth Standard Condominium Corporation #379

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Marjorie Flemington, Applicant

Self-represented

Wentworth Standard Condominium Corporation #379, Phil DiFrancesco, Respondents

Brent Foreman, Counsel

Introduction

1This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s Request for Interim Remedy (“Request”).

2The applicant filed this Application alleging discrimination in housing contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her by failing to provide her with ramped access to the main entrance to her unit and to the rear patio and also by failing to be flexible in the application of the condominium’s parking rules.

DEcision

3Rule 23.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, relating to requests for interim remedies, states:

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.

23.3 A Request for an Interim Remedy must include:

a) a detailed description of the order sought;

b) one or more declarations signed by persons with direct first-hand knowledge detailing all of the facts upon which the Applicant relies; and,

c) submissions with respect to the merits of the Application, the balance of harm or convenience and why an interim remedy would be just and appropriate in the circumstances, in accordance with the Rule 23.2.

4The applicant requests that the Tribunal order the respondents not to “pour concrete for any of the walkways or patios until [the parties] have reached agreement as to the work to be added into the current contract”. The basis for the request for interim relief is that the respondents are scheduled to begin, or have begun, replacing the interlocking stone walkways to the various condominium units with concrete walkways. The declaration enclosed with the applicant’s Request states that the respondents’ decision to move forward with this work illustrates their continued intent to disregard their responsibilities under the Code.

5The respondents opposed the applicant’s Request primarily on the basis that the work that is soon to be done will not prevent the subsequent construction of an access ramp to the applicant’s front porch. Similarly, the work on the remaining 23 other walkways will not have an impact on the construction of an access ramp to the applicant’s unit.

6In TA v. 60 Montclair, 2009 HRTO 369, the Tribunal states that interim remedies are extraordinary and are only granted when an applicant is able to demonstrate that such a remedy is necessary to ensure a complete, appropriate and effective remedy at the end of a hearing. In this case, the applicant is seeking a monetary remedy as well as remedies to ensure access to her main door and her back patio. She is also seeking an extension of a walkway along the lake and approval to use guest parking.

7Based on the information contained in the Request for Interim Remedy (Form 16) and the Response to the Request for Interim Remedy (Form 17), I am not persuaded that the balance of harm or convenience favours granting the interim remedy requested by the applicant. I am not persuaded that the concrete work that is planned will prevent the future construction of the ramps requested by the applicant. Therefore, I am not persuaded that an interim remedy is necessary to ensure that complete, appropriate and effective remedies would be available to the applicant if the Tribunal makes a finding of discrimination in this case.

Order

8The applicant has failed to articulate why the interim remedy she sought in her Request is necessary at this stage of the proceedings. In the circumstances, her Request for Interim Remedy is denied.