Karine Tyrrell v. Lake Promenade Apartments Limited/Compten Management Limited, 2010 HRTO 1680

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Karine Tyrrell

Applicant

-and-

Lake Promenade Apartments Limited/Compten Management Limited, Jack Greenberg, Anita Greenberg, Oleksandr Klymenko, and Nataliya Klymenko

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: August 12, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1680

Indexed as: Tyrell v. Lake Promenade Apartments

1This Application, filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges that the respondents discriminated against the applicant on the basis of age, sex and reprisal contrary to the Code.

2This Interim Decision addresses whether the personal respondents Oleksandr Klymenko and Nataliya Klymenko are proper parties to the Application.

Parties to the Proceeding

3The applicant filed her Application against the corporate respondent (her former landlord) as well as four personal respondents. The vast majority of the allegations in the Application relate to the applicant’s alleged exposure to excessive noise in her apartment. She alleges that the noise was caused by the tenants in the apartment adjacent to that of the applicant, the personal respondents Oleksandr Klymenko and Nataliya Klymenko.

4The Tribunal’s power to hear and determine human rights applications is based on the Code, which, among other things, prohibits discrimination and harassment with respect to housing on the basis 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 Tribunal does not have the power or jurisdiction to inquire into claims of unfairness, mistreatment or harassment which are not based on prohibited grounds in the Code.

5There is a real question in this case whether Oleksandr Klymenko and Nataliya Klymenko are proper respondents to the Application. Although the applicant describes the Klymenkos’ behaviour as “harassment”, there does not appear to be anything in the Application to link the alleged noise by the applicant’s neighbours or their other alleged mistreatment of the applicant to a prohibited ground under the Code. The Tribunal has held that in order for a named respondent to be a proper party to the proceeding, among other things, there must be allegations against the respondent, which if true, could lead to a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code: Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513 at para. 12.

6The applicant is directed to provide written submissions within 10 days of the date of this decision explaining why she believes the personal respondents Oleksandr Klymenko and Nataliya Klymenko are proper parties to the Application. If the applicant fails to make submissions on this issue as directed, the Tribunal will determine this issue based on the information available. The respondents are not required to make submissions on this issue unless and until directed to do so by the Tribunal.

7I am not seized of this matter.