Steven McKinnon v. Sheral Young, 2010 HRTO 694

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Steven McKinnon

Applicant

-and-

Sheral Young

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: March 29, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 694

Indexed as: McKinnon v. Young

1The applicant filed this Application on October 14, 2009, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code") alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in housing.

2It would appear that the sole allegation with respect to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is that a repairperson hired by the landlord, identified only as "David," made a homophobic comment to a guest who was at the time staying with the applicant. There is no date attached to that alleged comment, other than, according to an unsworn and unsigned affidavit of applicant, dated October 14, 2009, it happened "recently."

3This affidavit, which the applicant attaches to his Application, has the style of cause for a Divisional Court appeal of a matter that had been before the Landlord and Tenant Board ("LTB"). It is apparent from both this affidavit and the material supplied by the respondent (the applicant's landlord), that by the time the Application was filed there was already a lengthy history of litigation concerning non-payment of rent between the applicant and landlord. This dispute is unconnected to any matter properly before this Tribunal.

4In her Response, the respondent asks that this Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis that the substance of the Application had been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding. The other proceeding is not named, and there is nothing apparent in the plethora of documents attached to the Response that suggests that the specific allegation has been dealt with, appropriately or otherwise, in the course of the litigation between the parties thus far.

5In addition, the respondent asks this Tribunal to defer the Application on the basis that the applicant has brought an application to the LTB, File No. TET-00866-09, which is still in progress. It would appear from the application attached to the Response that this LTB application does, in fact, deal squarely with the allegation also found in the Application before this Tribunal.

6In his Reply, the applicant appears to agree that there is an outstanding proceeding before the LTB, but does not address the issue of whether this Tribunal should defer to that proceeding. Many of the remaining assertions in the Reply deal with matters relating to the dispute over the non-payment of rent, which, as I have already indicated, has no bearing on the matter properly before this Tribunal.

7The applicant is directed to deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal written submissions on the respondent's request for deferral within two weeks of the date of this Interim Decision. The respondent will have one week from the date of receipt of the applicant's submissions, if any, to serve and file a written response to them. The Tribunal will make a decision concerning deferral on the basis of these written submissions.

8I am not seized of this matter.