HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Christopher Mills
Applicant
-and-
Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation # 580, Jennifer Fraser, Sasha Delgado, Ed Jordan, Devon Mason, Angela Mason, John Fischer, Mark Willis-O’Connor, Brenda Bury, Justin McLarty, Trustlink Property Management, and Deacon, Spears Fedson & Montizambert
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: Mills v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation # 580
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Christopher Mills, Applicant
Self-represented
1The applicant filed an Application under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination because of disability and association with a person identified by a Code ground, as well as reprisal. The applicant alleged that the respondents have harassed him, reprised against him, and failed to provide accommodations for his disability over the course of the past 12 years.
2On October 12, 2017, the applicant filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings. The Request to Expedite Proceedings is refused and the Application will be processed in the normal course. Rule 21.2.1 provides that the HRTO need not give reasons for refusing a Request to Expedite.
3On October 19, 2017, the applicant filed a Request for Interim Remedy. The interim remedy the applicant requested was that the respondents provide him with the accommodations he has requested from them. The applicant is concerned that the respondents’ conduct will continue to exacerbate his disability and mental health.
DECISION
4The conditions for awarding an interim remedy are set out 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.
5Normally, 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 v 60 Montclair, 2009 HRTO 369. The Tribunal has generally been more reluctant to order an interim remedy that will create a new state of affairs than one that would preserve an existing state of affairs: VandenBroek v. Villa Otthon, 2011 HRTO 279.
6In TA v. 60 Montclair, the Tribunal stated that since the Code is remedial legislation, 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.”
7It is evident that the parties are involved in a conflictual relationship. It is also evident that the applicant firmly believes that the respondents are discriminating and/or reprising against him and they are subjecting him to a poisoned housing environment. Even if I were to accept that this Application appears to have merit, I am not persuaded that it is appropriate to award an interim remedy in this case. As noted above, interim remedies are exceptional 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. I am not persuaded that it would be appropriate to order the respondents to provide accommodations to the applicant in the absence of a finding, following a hearing, that the accommodations he is requesting are required under the Code.
order
8For the above reasons, the applicant’s request for an interim remedy is denied. His request that the Tribunal expedite his Application is also denied.
9I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 31st day of October, 2017.
“Signed by”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair