Dann v. Wallace, 2009 HRTO 392

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mary-Jane Dann

Applicant

-and-

Karen Wallace

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: April 3, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 392

Indexed as: Dann v. Wallace

1In this Application, Mary-Jane Dann alleges that Karen Wallace, a member of the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “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. In an Interim Decision, the Tribunal requested submissions from the applicant on the issue of whether the Application raises issues that fall under the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The applicant did not make submissions.

2The Application takes issue with a decision of Ms. Wallace, made pursuant to the Board’s powers under the Residential Tenancies Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 17, and remarks that Ms. Wallace allegedly made regarding the merits of the case during the hearing. The applicant alleges that Ms. Wallace told her that the Code did not apply and asked her to tell more about her disability in a proceeding concerning maintenance issues.

3In Baird v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2009 HRTO 99, 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…

4In my view, this reasoning applies to the present case. The content, reasons and result of the Landlord and Tenant Board’s decision-making process do not constitute a “service” under the Code. The Board member’s oral statements about her findings during the hearing, similarly, are an element of the decision-making process that is not a “service” within the meaning of the Code. For the same reasons it is not a “service”, the statutory decision of the Board does not constitute discrimination in housing or contracts.

5Accordingly, I find that this Application relates to issues that are not within the Tribunal’s power to decide.

ORDER

6The Application is dismissed.