Patterson v. Ottawa Community Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 1304

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Phillip Patterson

Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Community Housing Corporation

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: August 24, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1304

Indexed as: Patterson v. Ottawa Community Housing Corporation

1This is an Application filed on December 7, 2008, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2By Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 1033, the Tribunal requested the applicant’s written submissions on why his claim against the individual respondent is in the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and should be decided by the Tribunal. The applicant filed submissions on July 24, 2009.

3Much of the applicant’s submissions consist of his objections to determinations made in the Interim Decision. Although he does not specifically ask that those determinations be reconsidered, I have considered his objections, and find no basis for reconsideration. Assuming that those determinations are “final decisions” which can be the subject of a Request for Reconsideration under the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (see Rule 26), the applicant’s submissions do not establish the existence of any of the criteria supporting reconsideration.

4With respect to the individual respondent, the applicant submits that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is “weakened” as she lives in Nova Scotia. He states that the refusal by the Tribunal to add the other individual respondents as parties “railroads” his case, as they were acting on behalf of Ms. Nowe in Ontario.

5This Application arises out of the death of an individual, who was the individual respondent’s son. The applicant states that he was in a gay common-law relationship with the deceased. He states that the family of the deceased took the belongings of the deceased, including some to which he has a claim, and that the individual respondent discriminated against him by refusing to acknowledge the gay relationship and his rights to the deceased’s belongings.

6The question of whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the allegations made against Ms. Nowe is not about whether or not she lives in Ontario. As I stated in the Interim Decision, the Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into all claims of unfair treatment. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the provisions of the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific social relationships such as the provision of goods, services and facilities, housing, contractual relations and employment. The Code does not regulate relationships between individuals which do not have a basis in one of these social areas.

7The relationship between the individual respondent and the applicant appears to be, on the facts alleged by the applicant, a relationship between a family and the common-law spouse of one of its members. This is not an area that is governed by the Code.

8Having reviewed the material before me, I find no basis in the Code for the claim against the individual respondent, and it is dismissed. The style of cause in this Application is amended accordingly.

9The applicant and corporate respondent have agreed to mediation. The Registrar will schedule a mediation session.