Johnson v. Costa, 2010 HRTO 342

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kathy Johnson Applicant

-and-

Erika Costa and Peter Montaya Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte Date: February 16, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 342 Indexed as: Johnson v. Costa

Written Submissions by:

Kathy Johnson, Applicant ) On her own behalf

1This is an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleges discrimination in housing on the basis of receipt of public assistance. The Application contains a series of facts, issues and arguments and refers to legal proceedings between the applicant and the respondent Costa, who was the applicant’s landlord for a number of years. The respondent Montaya was another tenant of Ms. Costa.

2In its Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 2162, the Tribunal noted that a review of the Application and Reply did not reveal any connection between the alleged ground of discrimination, the receipt of public assistance, and the conduct of the respondents. The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions to address the connection between the alleged ground of discrimination and the conduct of the respondents. The respondents were provided with an opportunity to respond to the applicant’s submissions within seven days of receipt of the applicant’s submissions. The applicant provided her submissions but none were received from the respondents.

3The applicant's submissions contain a detailed recital of the numerous problems that she has encountered in dealing with her landlord, which allegedly have caused her and her husband to live in very uncomfortable living conditions. However, they do not explain the connection between her receipt of public assistance and the conduct of the respondents.

4The Tribunal does not have a general power to remedy claims of unfair treatment, but rather, bases its jurisdiction on the provisions of the Code, and, specifically, the prohibited grounds of discrimination within the five social areas covered by the Code. I find that the Application does not engage a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code and accordingly the Application is dismissed.