Skanes v. Landlord and Tenant Board, 2010 HRTO 2532

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Duane Skanes

Applicant

-and-

Landlord and Tenant Board and Jana Rozenhal

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: December 23, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2532

Indexed as: Skanes v. Landlord and Tenant Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Duane Skanes, Applicant ) Self-represented )

Landlord and Tenant Board and ) Randy Schroeder, Counsel Jana Rozenhal, Respondents )

1This is an Application filed on August 23, 2010, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination in receipt of services on the basis of disability. He names the Landlord and Tenant Board and a member of the Board, Jana Rozenhal, as respondents.

2On September 27, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) as it appeared that the Application may be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The parties were directed to provide written submissions on the issues raised in the NOID no later than 14 days from September 27, 2010.

3The respondents have filed submissions. The applicant has filed a letter in which he seeks to “appeal the decision to Dismiss” and asks the Tribunal to inform him as to “how (he) would go about having a hearing to discuss the matter”. He has made no further submissions in accordance with the directions contained in the NOID and the time for doing so has now passed.

4For the reasons that follow, the Application is dismissed.

5The Tribunal has considered and applied the doctrine of judicial immunity as a valid restriction on the Tribunal’s authority to inquire into the content of an adjudicative decision in the course of dealing with an Application: Cartier v. Nairn, 2009 HRTO 2208. A review of the principles upon which courts have extended judicial immunity is set out in Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered, 2009 HRTO 2180.

6As noted in Cartier and Hazel, judicial immunity has been extended to various non-judge decision-makers in respect of their decisions, but it is important to note that the extension has been from the role of judges in court proceedings and is focused on the nature of the service; the function that is performed, which is to be the neutral arbiter of a dispute between two or more persons. Clearly, the reason for judicial immunity is the maintenance of independence in the context of deciding disputes between two or more persons.

7In the circumstances of this Application, the submission made on behalf of the respondents is that all of the allegations made by the applicant concern rulings made by several members and a Vice-Chair of the Landlord and Tenant Board in the exercise of their function as independent, neutral arbiters of disputes involving landlords and tenants in residential tenancy matters in Ontario.

8There are no submissions or any evidence to the contrary from the applicant.

9As all decisions affecting the applicant were adjudicative in nature and made in the course of the Landlord and Tenant Board exercising its statutory duties, they fall outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and, accordingly, the Application is dismissed.