Dann v. Collins, 2008 HRTO 341

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between: Mary-Jane Dann, Applicant -and- Chad Collins, Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: December 2, 2008 Citation: 2008 HRTO 341 Indexed as: Dann v. Collins

Decision

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on August 19, 2008, pursuant to section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The applicant alleges the respondent, a City Councillor, treated the applicant unfairly and ignored her requests for assistance regarding her housing situation on a variety of alleged discriminatory grounds.

2The respondent filed a Response to the Application on August 27, 2008.

3Both parties indicated that they were prepared to engage in mediation. On November 13, 2008, the Tribunal scheduled a mediation for this matter to proceed on January 9, 2009.

4On November 17, 2008, the applicant served and filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings as well as a Request for Interim Remedy. On November 18, 2008, the applicant withdrew the Request to Expedite Proceedings.

5As an Interim Remedy, the applicant appears to be asking this Tribunal to stay proceedings and orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board (the "Board") in which the Board dismissed the applicant's claims against her landlord and ordered the termination of the applicant's tenancy. The respondent opposes the Request for Interim Remedy and submits that the concerns identified in the applicant's Request relate to her tenancy and relationship with her landlord and not the respondent.

6Rule 23.2 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure sets out a number of criteria the Tribunal will consider when determining whether to grant a request for an Interim Remedy:

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.

7Rule 23.3 requires the Request for Interim Remedy include a detailed description of the order sought; a signed declaration deposed by someone with direct first-hand knowledge detailing all of the facts upon which the applicant relies; and 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.

8Based on a careful review of the materials and submissions filed, the Request for Interim Remedy is denied. The applicant's Request for Interim Remedy does not satisfy the elements of Rule 23. The submissions fail to address the requisite criteria and although the applicant included two signed letters, the letters are written in support of the applicant's concerns regarding the physical state of her residential unit and appear to be written for the purposes of the tenancy hearing at the Board.

9The applicant's concerns noted in the Request for Interim Remedy relate to issues before the Board and are not directly relevant to her allegations about the respondent. The Request focuses on disputes regarding rights and responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 S.O. 2006, c. 17, as amended, and specifically, orders issued pursuant to that legislation. Consequently, even assuming that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to do so, it would not be appropriate or just to grant the requested Interim Remedy which, in effect, seeks a review of the Board's decisions. As stated in Romanchook v. Ontario, 2008 HRTO 217, "[e]ven assuming that the Tribunal has the power to make such an order, there are no submissions or evidence or any reason to believe that such an order is necessary or appropriate to protect the Tribunal's process or avoid violations of the Code."

10The Request for Interim Remedy is therefore dismissed. The mediation scheduled for January 9, 2009 is confirmed.

11I am not seized of this matter.