Keep v. Shriners Creek Co-op, 2010 HRTO 2240

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Elizabeth Keep and Grant Dobson Applicants

-and-

Shriners Creek Co-op Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: November 9, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2240 Indexed as: Keep v. Shriners Creek Co-op

1This is an Application filed on July 21, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability and reprisal.

2The Tribunal has not yet delivered the Application to the respondent. Rule 13.2 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure states that where it appears to the Tribunal that an Application is outside its jurisdiction, it shall, prior to sending the Application to the respondent, issue a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (NOID).

3The Tribunal sent the applicants a NOID on September 10, 2010. The NOID indicates that it appears that the Application is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because the events described in the Application fail to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent.

4The applicants provided written submissions on October 1, 2010, which was in the form of a letter to Premier Dalton McGuinty and follow-up submissions to the Tribunal on October 12, 2010.

5The applicants provide an extensive narrative of events in their Application, in which they make a number of allegations concerning what they believe is improper conduct on the part of the co-op administrator and board of directors. They also state that they have multiple disabilities. The link between the allegations of improper conduct (some of which is unrelated to them) and their respective disabilities (or any prohibited ground under the Code) is not obvious in this narrative of events.

6In the follow-up submissions, the applicants make a number of allegations that again do not link the conduct to a prohibited ground of discrmination. However, they also allege that following disclosure of Mr. Dobson's illness to one of the Board members, the treatment toward them changed, which resulted in their eventual eviction from the co-op.

7An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is "plain and obvious" on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. A decision to continue to deal with an application is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction in respect to the application (Rule 13.5).

8It is not plain and obvious to me, based on the information contained in the Application, that this Application should be dismissed at this preliminary stage. A copy of the Application and this Interim Decision will be served on the respondent.

9I am not seized of this matter.