<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
______________________________________________________________________
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
B E T W E E N:
Raphleta Taylor
Applicant
-and-
Shakil Mallick and Mirza Baig
Respondents
______________________________________________________________________
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
INTERIM DECISION
______________________________________________________________________
Adjudicator: Sherry Liang
<!--mc:cls:cover-meta-->
Date: March 12, 2010
<!--mc:cls:cover-meta-->
Citation: 2010 HRTO 535
<!--mc:cls:cover-line-->
Indexed as: Taylor v. Mallick
_____________________________________________________________________
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
[1] This is an Application filed on December 17, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the [Human Rights Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html), R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).
[2] On February 3, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, advising the applicant that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because a review of it and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the [Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html) allegedly committed by the respondents.
[3] The Application as filed alleged discrimination in housing on the ground of receipt of public assistance. It named two individuals as well as the Landlord and Tenant Board (the LTB), Peel Police – 11<sup>th</sup> Division, and City of Mississauga, Compliance Department as respondents.
[4] The applicant has filed written submissions in response to the Tribunal’s Notice. In her written submissions, she now alleges that her landlord and the landlord’s agent, who appear to be the individual respondents, discriminated against her because she is a “black, single Christian female.”
[5] She has not provided submissions alleging any acts of discrimination on the part of the other respondents, based on a ground and social area covered by the [Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html). Rather, it appears that her complaint about the other respondents is that they did not take action in response to her complaints about her landlord.
[6] I find that there is no basis to continue the Application against the Landlord and Tenant Board (the LTB), Peel Police – 11<sup>th</sup> Division, and City of Mississauga, Compliance Department. The Application is accordingly dismissed as against these respondents.
[7] Without making any determination as to the merits of her allegations against the remaining respondents, I find that it is not plain and obvious that the Application against them should be dismissed at this early stage. The Tribunal will continue to process the Application. The applicant’s submissions will be treated as an amendment to her Application against the remaining respondents.
[8] The Tribunal will serve the Application, the applicant’s submissions and a copy of this Interim Decision on the respondents.
[9] I am not seized of this matter.
<!--mc:open:case-tail-->
Dated at Toronto this 12<sup>th</sup> day of March, 2010.
“Signed By”
____________________________________
Sherry Liang
Vice-chair
<!--mc:close:case-tail-->
minicounsel