Eileen Meandro v. Robert Brisebois, 2009 HRTO 614

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Eileen Meandro

Applicant

-and-

Robert Brisebois

Respondent

Interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: May 12, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 614

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 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.

2With his Response, the respondent filed a Request for Early Dismissal. The respondent enclosed decisions of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that appear to correspond to some of the applicant’s allegations.

3On April 2, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 383, requesting 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.

Clarification in regard to the allegations

4In the course of the teleconference, relevant assertions of fact were clarified. The applicant acknowledged that certain matters, such as her concern about a constant electrical buzzing noise in her house, are not part of this Application. After discussion of the one-year time limit set out in s. 34(1) of the Code, she also agreed to focus on actions or omissions of the respondent that allegedly occurred after September 29, 2007.

5The allegations and issues are narrowed as follows:

1. The applicant alleges that the respondent has failed to keep her rental accommodation in good repair during the year before the date of her Application. She specifically notes water in the basement, a leaky door, and a furnace that breaks down.

2. The applicant alleges that the respondent told a repair person not to speak to her because she is “nuts and a trouble-maker”.

3. The applicant alleges that the respondent has done nothing to address harassment of the applicant by two of the respondent’s other tenants, who live next door to the applicant. Specifically, she says that, in June 2008, the man who lives next door called her “nuts” and, while conversing with someone across the street, loudly said “I’m going to get rid of that bitch one way or the other”. The applicant also says that the wife of the man next door has referred to the applicant as a “nut”.

Decision in regard to the Request for Early Dismissal

6The above-noted allegations have not been dealt with in the applicant’s previous applications to the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal. If the alleged facts, and their link to one of the personal characteristics cited by the applicant, are proved, the applicant could establish that the respondent has breached the Code. For this reason, The Tribunal will not dismiss this Application at this stage.

Deferral to Landlord and Tenant Board

7In respect of the alleged failure to maintain (allegation number one above), the applicant has applied to the Landlord and Tenant Board. The application will be heard on May 20, 2009.

8Pursuant to Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party. In each case, the Tribunal must consider, in light of the particular circumstances, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.

9In view of the fact that the date for the Landlord and Tenant Board hearing is so close, the parties agreed that it would be appropriate to defer this Application until the Board has dealt with the matter. I agree that a deferral is appropriate. If, after the hearing before the Landlord and Tenant Board, the applicant wishes to proceed with this Application, she may make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the application before the Landlord and Tenant Board.

ORDER

9Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the hearing before the Landlord and Tenant Board.

10I am not seized of this matter.