Firman v. Rao, 2017 HRTO 1623

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michelle Firman

Applicant

-and-

George Rao

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Esi Codjoe

Date: December 7, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1623

Indexed as: Firman v. Rao

APPEARANCES

Michelle Firman, Applicant

Self-represented

George Rao, Respondent

Anthony S. Kassam, Paralegal

1The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondent discriminated against her with respect to housing because of disability and receipt of public assistance, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On July 10, 2017, by Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to address whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed. The summary hearing proceeded in person on October 13, 2017.

3The applicant made submissions regarding the evidence that she intends to rely on to establish her claims regarding the respondent’s alleged harassment and/or discrimination on the basis of disability and receipt of public assistance. That evidence includes medical documents, and text messages in support of her claims. The proposed evidence is such that it is not appropriate to dismiss the Application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

4Rule 19.6A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure stipulates that where the Tribunal decides not to dismiss an Application following a summary hearing it need not give reasons. In order to address the applicant’s allegations and the respondent’s refutation of them, the Tribunal must hear evidence from the parties in a full hearing on the merits.

Order

5The Tribunal will continue to process the Application. The applicant has indicated that she is willing to participate in mediation. The respondent has not yet filed a Response to the Application (Form 2). The respondent is directed to file a Response not later 35 days from the date of this Interim Decision. The Response should indicate whether he is willing to participate in mediation.

6I am not seized.