Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Guy Babineau
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, The Landlord and Tenant Board
and Elizabeth Beckett
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim
Indexed as: Babineau v. Ontario (Municipal Affairs and Housing)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS by
Guy Babineau, Applicant ) On his own behalf
Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario ) Randy Schroeder, as represented by the Minister of Municipal Affairs ) Counsel and Housing, The Landlord and Tenant Board ) and Elizabeth Beckett )
1This Application was received on December 30, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2In a prior Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 994, the Tribunal raised the issue whether the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “LTB”) should be added as a respondent to this Application. The Tribunal received the written submissions from the parties and counsel for LTB.
Background
3The applicant self-identifies as a person with a hearing impairment. He alleges that Elizabeth Beckett, a Vice-chair of the LTB discriminated against him in the provision of a service by failing to accommodate his needs while he was representing his clients in a matter before her in May 2005. The applicant also alleges that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (the “Ministry”) failed to ensure that the LTB provided non-discriminatory treatment to the hard of hearing.
4The respondents have filed a Request for early dismissal on the basis that the Application against the respondent Beckett is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal on the basis of judicial immunity, statutory immunity and other reasons. They also asserted that there are no facts set out in the Application against the Ministry and the Ministry is not liable for the actions of Beckett.
Position of the Parties on the Request to add the LTB as a party
5The applicant took the position that the LTB should be added as a party to address any compensation remedies that may be awarded and to explain its policy with respect to providing captioning for the hard of hearing and deaf. At the same time, the applicant brought to my attention two cases which he believed did not support the addition of the LTB as a party to these proceedings: Royer v. Mignault (1988) 1988 CanLII 445 (QC CA), 32 C.R.R. 1 (Ont CA); Re Forest and Registrar of Court of Appeal of Manitoba, 1977 CanLII 1635 (MB CA), 77 D.L.R. (3d) 445 (Ont CA). In my view, these cases have no application to the issues before me.
6The respondents and the LTB, represented by the same counsel, appeared to have misunderstood the applicant’s position and purported to agree with the applicant that the LTB should not be added as a party. To the contrary, the applicant’s position is that the LTB should be added as a party.
7They further stated that the LTB is a quasi-judicial tribunal with powers akin to a court. Since the LTB is not incorporated or otherwise a legal entity that can sue, be sued or contract in its own name, it cannot be named as a respondent to a human rights application. The respondents and the LTB provided no legal authority to support this position.
8The Code provides that no person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under the Code (section 9). “Person” is defined in section 46 to include an unincorporated association. In my view, the LTB is an entity that is capable of being named as a respondent to a human rights application.
9I also find the respondents’ position is somewhat inconsistent. On the one hand, in response to the question whether the LTB should be added as a party, they take the position that the Ministry is the appropriate respondent, not the LTB. On the other hand, in response to the merits of the Application, they submitted that there are no factual allegations made against the Ministry and therefore the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make an order against them. Similarly, on behalf of Ms. Beckett, they submitted that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review her rulings which resulted in the alleged discrimination against the applicant.
Analysis
10The Tribunal has held that where alleged facts, if proven, could lead to a finding that the proposed respondent infringed the applicant’s rights under the Code; and the proposed respondent would not suffer real and substantial prejudice if added as a party to