Pierce v. 837690 Ontario, 2010 HRTO 1898

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Pamela Pierce

Applicant

-and-

837690 Ontario Inc. o/a Westcourt Place

and Dennis Renaud

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: September 20, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1898

Indexed as: Pierce v. 837690 Ontario

1This Interim Decision addresses the respondents’ Request for an Early Dismissal on the basis that the substance of the Application has been appropriately dealt with by two other proceedings, a decision by the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”) and a Peace Bond Application. The applicant opposes this request on the grounds that the LTB decision is not based on the alleged facts that give rise to her Application.

2The Application, filed on January 11, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) alleges discrimination in housing on the basis of race, colour and disability. The applicant is a tenant of the corporate respondent, Westcourt Place, and the personal respondent, Dennis Renaud, is an employee of the corporate respondent who is responsible for maintenance in the building in which the applicant lives. The applicant alleges that the personal respondent harassed and discriminated against her and she identifies a number of specific incidents of concern to her as having occurred on December 8, 2008, August 31, 2009, September 1, 2009, September 4, 2009, and October 8, 2009.

3The respondents provided a copy of the LTB decision that they identify as having appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. The LTB decision in regards to an application made by the applicant alleging that the personal respondent illegally entered her rental unit on or about January 8, 2009. The LTB dismisses the application finding that the personal respondent reasonably perceived an emergency situation was occurring. This incident is not included in the Application.

4The respondents also provided a copy of a summons for the personal respondent to appear on June 9, 2010 in relation to information laid against him by the applicant for threatening behaviour from December 8, 2008 until May 21, 21010. The applicant was requesting that the personal respondent to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour (a “peace bond”). The respondents state that the Crown withdrew this application.

Request to Dismiss

5The request to dismiss is made pursuant to section 45.1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Section 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.

The issue for the Tribunal is whether another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of all or part of the Application, such that the Application should be dismissed in all or in part.

6The Tribunal has considered the applicability of section 45.1 in two stages: (1) whether there was another “proceeding” and (2) if so, whether it appropriately dealt with the substance of the application. I have no difficulty in finding that the decision made by the LTB in exercising its statutory function is a “proceeding” within the meaning of the Code.

7With regard to the second issue of determining whether a proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of an Application, the Tribunal considers whether the same facts that provided the basis for the other proceeding are part of the Application. In this case it is evident that the LTB decision which specifically deals with a single incident on or about January 8, 2009, does not address the incidents identified in the Application. Consequently, the LTB decision in this case is not a proceeding within the meaning of section 45.1.

8The issue of whether a peace bond could be a proceeding with the meaning of 45.1 is academic as the information before me is that no peace bond is in place.

9For the above reasons the respondents’ request to dismiss is denied and the Tribunal will continue to process the Application.

10I am not seized of this matter.