HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Eileen Meandro
Applicant
-and-
Robert Brisebois
Respondent
Interim DECISION
Adjudicator: Judith Keene
Indexed as: Meandro v. Brisebois
1This Application is brought under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application makes numerous allegations against the respondent landlord and against other tenants who are unnamed. Prior to accepting the Application for processing, the Registrar sought more specific information from the applicant about her allegations and their connection to the Code.
2The social areas identified in the Application are housing and services, goods and facilities. The applicant alleges that she has been harassed by both her landlord and other tenants who live in houses near her own on the basis of disability, creed, age and receipt of public assistance. The applicant states that she does not know the names of the other tenants, although she does provide their addresses. She claims that these tenants harassed and stalked her, and invaded her privacy, but she does not identify what specific actions took place or provide any details. With respect to the respondent landlord, the applicant alleges that he uses her driveway to gain access to “the back lot”, and has failed to appropriately maintain her rental accommodation. In addition, she complains about a “constant electrical buzzing noise” in the house. She alleges that the respondent landlord “told his maintenance men not to talk to me, as I’m nuts and a trouble-maker”.
3On January 8, 2009, the respondent filed his Response to the Application and requested early dismissal of the Application on the basis that another proceeding has in whole or in part dealt with the substance of the Application. The respondent denies discriminating against or harassing the applicant and assumes the applicant is raising matters she has already brought to the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.
4The respondent enclosed a number of attachments with his Response:
a record of the settlement on November 24, 2004 of a claim in respect of maintenance filed with the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal (OHRT);
A decision of the OHRT issued June 23, 2005 dismissing the applicant’s claim of harassment against the respondent for lack of evidence;
A decision of the OHRT issued August 26, 2005 dismissing a claim the respondent had interfered with the applicant’s reasonable enjoyment of her rental unit;
A decision of the OHRT issued January 26, 2007 dismissing a claim the respondent had failed to meet his maintenance obligations; and
A decision of the OHRT issued February 22, 2007 dismissing a second claim of harassment by the applicant against the respondent because the applicant failed to attend.
The respondent enclosed reports from 2005 in respect of maintenance and an electrical inspection, correspondence from the applicant, and a letter of February 22, 2006 on Greater Sudbury Hydro Plus Inc. letterhead from an “Energy Supply Coordinator”. That letter states that “we have responded on numerous occasions to ‘humming sounds’ and have found no problems”.
5The respondent has also provided decisions of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that appear to correspond to the applicant’s allegations.
6On February 10, 2009, the applicant filed a Reply to the Response. Despite a request to address new issues raised in the Response and the Request for early dismissal, the applicant’s Reply submissions did not provide a response to these issues.
The allegations against the other tenants
7The applicant has provided addresses of persons whom she says have harassed her. However, she does not identify what specific actions took place, when they took place, or any other identifying information about persons involved. Lacking specific allegations of facts, information about when incident(s) happened and at least the address and description of persons involved, the Tribunal cannot deal with the allegations.
8The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in the areas of accommodation, services, goods and facilities, employment, contracts and membership in vocational associations, on the basis of grounds listed in the Code. I find that the general allegations against the unidentified tenants do not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide, and I dismiss that part of the Application.
The allegations against the respondent landlord
9The applicant’s allegation that the respondent landlord made a derogatory remark based on disability to “his maintenance men” is a clear allegation of breach of the Code, although the applicant does not say when she alleges this remark was made. The date is important in view of the one-year limitation period in s. 34 of the Code.
10Some of the applicant’s allegations are general accusations of wrongdoing, rather than allegations of specific actions or omissions connected with grounds of discrimination included in the Code.
11The applicant’s specific allegations concerning failure to maintain the premises are alleged by the respondent landlord to have been dealt with by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal. The respondent landlord has provided copies of decisions of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that appear to deal with this subject-matter.
12Section 45.1 of the Code provides as follows:
The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.
13In view of the circumstances, the Registrar will schedule a teleconference with the parties to hear:
evidence from the applicant as to what specific actions or omissions of the respondent landlord she alleges offend the Code, and when such actions or omissions took place;
the reasons why the applicant alleges that such specific actions of the respondent landlord offend the Code, and
whether any part of the Application is barred as a result of s. 45.1 of the Code.
14I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of April, 2009.
“Signed by”
Judith Keene
Vice-chair