The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has ordered a landlord to disclose the identity and contact information of a repair person accused of sexual harassment by a tenant, allowing the case to proceed against the individual. The tribunal also granted the applicant’s request to add the property owner as a respondent, alleging failure to address the tenant’s complaint.
The applicant, R.Z., filed a complaint under the Human Rights Code, alleging that a repair person, identified only as “Ali Handyman,” engaged in sexual harassment during visits to her rental unit. Initially, the tribunal closed the complaint against the repair person due to a lack of contact details. However, R.Z. subsequently filed a Request for Order during Proceeding (RFOP), seeking an order requiring A.M., the landlord, to provide the individual’s legal name and last known contact information.
The tribunal ruled that disclosing the repair person’s information was necessary for a fair and just resolution of the matter. It cited Rule 1.7 p. of its Rules of Procedure, which allows the tribunal to compel parties to produce relevant information. The decision noted that A.M. had been served with the RFOP but did not respond.
“Given the substance of the applicant’s allegations and her inability to find contact information for the repair person because she does not know his name, I find that it is fair and just to order disclosure of the information sought by the applicant,” the tribunal stated.
In addition, the tribunal granted a second RFOP filed by R.Z., which sought to add Griho Holdings Ltd. (Griho), identified in Landlord and Tenant Board proceedings as the property owner, as a respondent. R.Z. alleged that she complained to Griho about the sexual harassment and that the company failed to investigate or take remedial action.
Under Rule 1.7 b., the tribunal has the authority to add parties to a proceeding if doing so ensures a fair and just resolution. The ruling found that adding Griho as a respondent was appropriate, stating that “if the allegations are true, Griho may be legally responsible for the discrimination alleged by the applicant.”
Further, the tribunal permitted R.Z. to amend her complaint to formally include the allegation that Griho failed to act on her complaint. Since Griho had not yet been served with the application, the tribunal determined that allowing the amendment would not cause prejudice to the respondent. “There is no prejudice to the respondent Griho in adding the allegation because Griho has not yet been served with the Application,” the tribunal noted.
The tribunal issued a series of orders:
- A.M. must provide the tribunal and the applicant with the repair person’s full name and last known contact information within seven days.
- If A.M. does not have the requested information, Griho must provide it instead.
- Once the information is received, the tribunal registrar will re-open the complaint against the repair person and amend the case file accordingly.
- Griho is formally added as a respondent, and the case file will reflect this change.
- The repair person and other respondents must file complete responses to the application within 35 days of receiving the required documents.
- The applicant may file a reply within 21 days after receiving responses from the respondents.
The ruling also warned that if the respondents fail to meet the deadlines for providing the requested information or filing responses, the tribunal may proceed without further notice and take steps permitted under its rules.
This interim decision allows the complaint to move forward against all named respondents and ensures that the repair person, previously unidentifiable, will be formally included in the proceedings.
For more information, see Zhang v. Mohiuddin, 2025 HRTO 566 (CanLII).
