Olga Iourtchak v. York Condominium Corporation #201, 2010 HRTO 286

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Olga Iourtchak Applicant

-and-

York Condominium Corporation #201 Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: February 8, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 286 Indexed as: Iourtchak v. York Condominium Corporation #201

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 March 17, 2009, which alleges that the respondent discriminated against her with respect to housing on the basis of race and sexual solicitation or advance. Specifically, the applicant alleges that the respondent kept a “black list” of building residents, on which her name was listed.

2The applicant is an owner of a condominium unit of the respondent condominium corporation. She alleges that she was refused services from the respondent because she was included on the list, but the Application does not provide particulars with respect to whether the refusal of services was connected to any sexual solicitation or advances, or to her race. The Application does not identify her race. The only reference to race is the checking of the box “Race” on the Application form. Similarly, the only reference to sexual solicitations or advances is the checking of the box “Sexual Solicitation or Advances” on the Application form. The Application does not explain how the respondent has treated the applicant differently or harassed her because of her race or sex.

3The respondent filed a Response and a Request for Order During Proceedings on July 2, 2009. The respondent requests the early dismissal of the Application on the basis that 1) the Tribunal has no jurisdiction; 2) the Application discloses no prima facie case of discrimination or harassment; 3) the Application is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the Tribunal’s process and 4) the Application lacks particulars.

4An oral hearing was held on January 26, 2010 to deal with the respondent’s Request that the Application be dismissed. In her submissions at the hearing, the applicant explained that the president of the respondent’s Board of Directors identified her as an imbecile and idiot on the black list of building residents, and that he had instructed the superintendent of the building to provide her with inferior services. The applicant filed the Application because she understood that she had rights not to be insulted.

5She also explained that her Application is one of a group of applications filed by various owners of condominium units, all of whom object to the alleged rudeness of the president of the respondent’s Board of Directors. She explained that some of the other owners may have been discriminated against contrary to the Code, but that they have filed their own applications which were completed with language basically identical to the language she used in her Application. She agreed, however, that there is no connection between the respondent’s alleged bad treatment of her and any grounds in the Code.

6While conflict in the context of accommodation can deeply impact those affected, the Tribunal does not have a general jurisdiction to evaluate relationships between condominium corporations and unit owners or to resolve all situations of rudeness, bad treatment or unfairness that may exist in a condominium environment. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is limited to hearing applications that allege violations of the Code. With respect to accommodation, s. 2(1) prohibits discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status, disability or receipt of public assistance.

7While it is clear that the applicant is having difficulties with her condominium environment, there is no allegation of discrimination on the basis of one or more of the grounds protected by the Code.

8The Tribunal finds that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.

9While this Decision dismisses only this Application and does not determine any other Applications, the Registrar will deliver this Decision to the other condominium owners who have filed related Applications against the respondent.