Constance Moulton v. David Martin and Darren Gilbert, 2009 HRTO 85

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Constance Moulton Applicant

-and-

David Martin and Darren Gilbert Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright Date: January 27, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 85 Indexed as: Moulton v. Martin

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code") on October 21, 2008. The Application alleges that her co-tenant and the property manager of her building violated the Code through the tenant's complaint to the manager about her dog barking and the manager's request that she keep the dogs more quiet. The applicant alleges that these actions constitute reprisals within the meaning of the Code. Her Application, however, does not make an allegation that these actions were taken because she asserted rights under the Code.

2In an Interim Decision in this matter, Moulton v. Martin, 2008 HRTO 452, the Tribunal stated:

The Tribunal does not have a general power to deal with disputes related to accommodation, but hears applications that allege violations of the Code. Section 2(1) of the Code prohibits discrimination with respect to accommodation because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance. The applicant states, in her reply, her belief that "this is a matter of human rights. The matter involves my rights to own a pet of my choice, in my rental unit, which I pay for each month, and to enjoy my pet as I see fit". However, these are not grounds set out in the Code.

Section 8 prohibits reprisals as follows:

Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.

The applicant does not allege, in either the Application or her Reply, that the respondents' actions were in response to any of the following:

• Claiming or enforcing a right under the Code;
• Instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or
• Refusing to infringe the right of another person.

Moreover, the applicant has identified no other ground of discrimination or basis upon which she alleges that the Code was violated.

The Tribunal requests written submissions from the applicant to address the issue of its power (jurisdiction) to hear the Application. The applicant should explain how her Application raises matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. The respondents are not required to file any submissions unless directed to do so by the Tribunal.

3The applicant did not make any submissions by the date set out in the previous decision. Since the Application does not make any allegations that the Code was violated or that the actions of the respondents constituted a reprisal within the meaning of the Code, I find that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application. Accordingly, it must be dismissed.

ORDER

4The Application is dismissed.