HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Craig Barton
Applicant
-and-
Landlord and Tenant Board and Don Radford
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Sherry Liang
Indexed as: Barton v. Landlord and Tenant Board
1This is an Application filed on July 16, 2008 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The events on which the Application is based arise out of a hearing before the Landlord and Tenant Board (the LTB) on June 18, 2008.
2The respondents have filed a Response to the Application in which they ask it to be dismissed on the basis that the personal respondent has statutory immunity under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA), that as a quasi-judicial tribunal, the LTB is not a proper respondent, and that in any event, beyond the bald assertions of discrimination, the complaint is devoid of any particulars of discrimination by the respondents.
3The purpose of this Interim Decision is to direct the applicant’s submissions on the issues raised.
PERSONAL RESPONDENT
4In Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31, 2008 HRTO 31 the Tribunal set out a non-exhaustive list of factors which it takes into consideration in assessing whether a personal respondent should be removed from a Tribunal proceeding:
Is there a corporate respondent in the proceeding that also is alleged to be liable for the same conduct?
Is there any issue raised as to the corporate respondent’s deemed or vicarious liability for the conduct of the personal respondent who [is] sought to be removed?
Is there any issue as to the ability of the corporate respondent to respond to or remedy the alleged Code infringement?
Does any compelling reason exist to continue the proceeding as against the personal respondent, such as where it is the individual conduct of the personal respondent that is a central issue or where the nature of the alleged conduct of the personal respondent may make it appropriate to award a remedy specifically against that individual if an infringement is found?
Would any prejudice be caused to any party as a result of removing the personal respondent?
5The LTB has also raised the 232(1) of the RTA as a bar to proceeding against the personal respondent.
6The applicant will be directed to provide submissions on whether the personal respondent should be removed as a party to this Application.
THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD AS A QUASI-JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL
7The LTB states that it is not incorporated or a legal entity and cannot be named as a party to any proceeding other than in administrative law proceedings in the Divisional Court. The LTB states that where a complainant in a matter before the Tribunal contends that the LTB should be named as a respondent, the appropriate responding party in place of the LTB and, subject to the provisions of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, is Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
8The applicant will be directed to provide submissions on whether the LTB is a proper respondent to this Application.
WHETHER THE APPLICATION MAKES OUT A CLAIM OF DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE CODE
9The Application alleges that a mediator with the LTB spoke to the landlord’s representative on the date scheduled for the hearing of the applicant’s tenant rights application before the LTB. He alleges that the mediator gave the landlord’s representative legal advice, to the effect that she should ask the adjudicator to order the applicant to pay “a large sum of money” to her and dismiss his case. He states that the actions of the mediator did not result in any detriment to him, however, he believes the mediator should be punished.
10The applicant alleges that “if he gave her advice, then this is real racism”. He states that the mediator had “racial motivations” and tried to “sabotage a mulatto person.” He states “I know this because Lesly Barns is white and I am not. He would not have done the same to others.”
11The applicant’s allegations are disputed by the respondents.
12The Tribunal will direct the applicant to provide submissions on the issue of whether the allegations in his Application, even if assumed to be true, provide a basis for a finding that the respondents have violated the Code.
ORDER
13The applicant is therefore directed to provide his submissions on the following issues:
a. whether the personal respondent should be removed as a party to this Application;
b. whether the LTB is a proper respondent to this Application;
c. whether the allegations in his Application, even if assumed to be true, provide a basis for a finding that the respondents have violated the Code.
14The applicant may have the option of providing his submissions in writing, or orally. If the applicant wishes to provide his submissions orally, he must advise the Tribunal of this by October 15, 2009. If the applicant is content to have the Tribunal deal with these issues in writing, the applicant’s written submissions must be delivered to the respondents and filed with the Tribunal by November 7, 2009, following which the Tribunal may determine the issues without a further opportunity for oral submissions. The respondents are not required to file a written response pending further direction from the Tribunal.
15I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto this 8th day of October, 2009.
“Signed by”
Sherry Liang
Vice-chair