Dann v. Wallace, 2009 HRTO 261

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Mary-Jane Dann Applicant

-and-

Karen Wallace Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: David A. Wright Date: March 9, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 261 Indexed as: Dann v. Wallace

Reasons for Decision

1In this Application, Mary-Jane Dann alleges that Karen Wallace, a member of the Landlord and Tenant Board, discriminated against her in housing, goods, services and facilities, and contracts on the basis of race, disability, sexual orientation and receipt of public assistance. The respondent has filed a Request for Order During Proceedings requesting that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis, among other reasons, that the Tribunal has “no jurisdiction… with respect to the decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board”.

2Although the Request asks that it be heard through a telephone conference call, I am of the view that there is a significant issue of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with this Application, and that this issue should be determined through written submissions. The issues raised by the applicant are not within the Tribunal’s power (jurisdiction) to decide unless they allege discrimination in (i) housing; (ii) goods, services, and facilities; and/or (iii) contracts within the meaning of the Code.

3The applicant should deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal submissions explaining why, in her view, this Application raises issues that fall under the Code. In doing so, she may wish to consider the Tribunal’s decision in Baird v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2009 HRTO 99, where the Tribunal stated as follows at paras. 12-13:

The application of the Code and the powers of the Tribunal are specifically enumerated in the Code. Pursuant to s. 1, every person has the right to equal treatment “with respect to services, goods and facilities”. While a statutory decision-making process is a “service” for the purposes of the Code, there are elements of that process that are not encompassed by the Code’s meaning of “service”, such as the decision itself. The content, reasons and result contained in a decision of a statutory decision-maker cannot be understood to be part of the “service” a statutory Tribunal is providing to the public. The decision is, therefore, not subject to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

It is clear to me that this Application relates to issues that are entirely outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The applicant is effectively asking the Tribunal to review the WSIAT’s interpretation of the Code and substitute its own decision for WSIAT’s. This is beyond the Tribunal’s statutory authority…

4The applicant shall deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal her submissions on this issue by March 23, 2009. If she does not file any submissions, the Application may be dismissed as beyond the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The respondent need not make any further submissions unless directed to do so by the Tribunal.

5I am not seized of this Application.