HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Kenneth Johnson
Applicant
-and-
Thorold Municipal Non-Profit Housing Corporation
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty
Indexed as: Johnson v. Thorold Municipal Non-Profit Housing Corporation
1The Application was filed on September 30, 2009, pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination on the basis of disability and age in the context of housing and goods, facilities and services. The applicant also alleges reprisal or threat of reprisal.
2In essence, the applicant states that the respondent entered his apartment without permission, failed to address the applicant’s complaints regarding pests, failed to accommodate his disability by providing an appropriate parking spot, had his car towed, and harassed and threatened him.
3The respondent filed a Response in which it seeks the early dismissal of the Application because another proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”) has appropriately dealt with its substance. The respondent has provided the Tribunal with a copy of the LTB’s decision and a copy of the application filed with that board.
4The applicant has not filed a Reply or otherwise responded to the respondent’s Request for early dismissal. The time for doing so has elapsed.
5On March 15, 2010, the applicant filed a Request to Expedite the Application citing “Eviction on March 31st 2010 - Ill health” as the basis for his Request.
6The respondent filed a Response to the Request to Expedite asking the Tribunal to consider its Request for an early dismissal of the Application before determining the Request to Expedite. The respondent indicates that it will take a position regarding the Request to Expedite only once the Tribunal has ruled on the early dismissal issue.
Request to dismiss
7Section 45.1 of the Code provides:
The Tribunal may dismiss and application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.
8There is no dispute that an LTB hearing is a proceeding for the purposes of section 45.1 of the Code.
9Based on the application filed with the LTB, I accept that the applicant raised allegations with the LTB that are substantially similar to those contained in the Application. Specifically, he alleged that:
a. the respondent improperly entered his apartment;
b. the respondent and/or an employee of the respondent harassed and threatened him;
c. the respondent failed to accommodate his disability by failing to provide an accessible parking spot; and
d. the respondent discriminated against the applicant by towing his vehicle.
10Based on the LTB’s decision, I am satisfied that these issues were considered by the LTB and dismissed. The LTB held that, despite the applicant’s sincere belief that he has been mistreated by the respondent, his application to the LTB was without merit. The LTB specifically concluded that the applicant had not, in fact, requested accommodation under the Code regarding accessible parking.
11In my view the substance of the Application has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code.
12In light of this conclusion, it is not necessary for me to determine the applicant’s Request to Expedite.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of March, 2010.
“Signed by”
Michelle Flaherty
Vice-chair