HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Anne Barot Applicant
-and-
Buyer Broker Realty Inc. Respondent
AND B E T W E E N:
Thierry Cailloz Applicant
-and-
Buyer Broker Realty Inc. Respondent
Decision
Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: July 25, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1383 Indexed as: Barot v. Buyer Broker Realty
1The applicants each filed an Application 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 ethnic origin, place of origin, and citizenship with respect to accommodation. The Applications raise the same issues based on the same factual allegations. The same preliminary issues are raised in both Applications. The preliminary issues are, therefore, being considered together.
2In two earlier Interim Decisions, 2010 HRTO 2113 and 2010 HRTO 2114, the Tribunal denied the respondents' Request for an early dismissal of the Applications. Instead, it deferred the Applications pending an ongoing matter before the Landlord and Tenant Board ("Board").
3On February 3, 2011, the applicants each filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings ("Request") seeking to reactivate their Applications. The applicants state that the Board rendered a final decision on December 8, 2010 that does not address their concerns under the Code.
4The respondents have filed a Response to the Request seeking the dismissal of the Applications pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code, on the basis that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Applications.
5In a further Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 766, the Tribunal denied the respondents' Request and held that a Board proceeding did not address the substance of the Applications. The Tribunal wrote:
It may be, however, that to allow the Applications to proceed would be an abuse of process. The Tribunal has recently addressed this issue in Cunningham v. CUPE 4400, 2011 HRTO 658. In that case, the Tribunal held that it is an abuse of process for a party to pursue a human rights claim before the Tribunal where it was involved in a previous proceeding in which it could have (but did not) raise human rights issues.
6In that Interim Decision, the Tribunal directed the applicants to advise if they wished to make oral or further written submissions on the dismissal issue. The Tribunal indicated that, absent communication from the applicants, the issue might be determined based on the materials already filed by the parties.
7The applicants have not communicated with the Tribunal within the time frame specified in the Interim Decision. Accordingly, it was not clear that the applicants wished to proceed with these Applications.
8In a Case Assessment Direction dated June 17, 2011 the Tribunal directed the applicants to advise the Tribunal and the respondent in writing, within two weeks of the Case Assessment Direction, whether they wished to proceed with the Applications. The Tribunal indicated that if the applicants failed to communicate with the Tribunal as directed, their Applications could be dismissed as abandoned or might be determined based on materials already filed.
9The applicants did not communicate with the Tribunal within the required timeframe. Accordingly, the Applications are dismissed as abandoned.
10Dated at Toronto, this 25^th^ day of June, 2011.
"signed by"__________
Michelle Flaherty Vice-chair