Love v. Metcap Living Management Inc., 2017 HRTO 1502

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Steven Love

Applicant

-and-

MetCap Living Management Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sophie Martel

Date: November 16, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1502

Indexed as: Love v. Metcap Living Management Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Steven Love, Applicant

Marisa Scotto di Luzio, Counsel

MetCap Living Management Inc., Respondent

Rob Winterstein, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to amend his Application.

2The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination because of disability, sexual orientation and receipt of public assistance contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleged that the respondent landlord failed to adequately investigate and address harassment and has contributed to a poisoned environment in the building where he lives. He also alleges that the respondent landlord failed to accommodate a disability-related housing need.

3On July 17, 2017, by Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), the applicant sought to amend the Application to correct typographical errors and to add additional incidents that occurred after he filed his Application and which demonstrate an ongoing breach of the Code.

4The respondent did not respond to the applicant’s RFOP and the time for doing so has passed.

5The hearing in this matter has been scheduled for January 23 and 24, 2018.

decision

6In 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.

7Having considered the factors set out above, I grant the applicant’s request to amend the Application. The request was not opposed by the respondent. The request is timely, the additional allegations are of a similar character as the discrimination alleged in the original Application and the respondent has not raised any potential prejudice.

order

8For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The applicant’s request to amend the Application is granted;

b. The Application is amended to include the allegations contained in the applicant’s July 17, 2017 RFOP;

c. The respondent may file an amended Response to the amendments made to the Application within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision or simply address the additional allegations at the hearing.

d. The applicant may file an amended Reply to the amended Response within 14 days of receiving any amended Response or address the amended Response at the hearing.