McMurtie v. Landlord and Tenant Board, 2011 HRTO 1548

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lynda McMurtie

Applicant

• and-

Landlord and Tenant Board

Respondent

decision

Adjudicator: Ian R. Mackenzie

Date: August 18, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1548

Indexed as: McMurtie v. Landlord and Tenant Board

1Lynda McMurtie filed an Application against the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”) under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability.

2The applicant filed an application with the LTB against her landlord. The LTB issued a decision on February 22, 2011 dismissing her application. The applicant asked the LTB to review that decision on March 7, 2011. The record does not show the current status of that review request. The applicant alleges that the adjudicator failed to consider her disability and the obligation of her landlord to accommodate her disability.

3The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on July 29, 2011 stating that it appeared that the Application was outside its jurisdiction because the respondent is an adjudicator and the doctrine of judicial immunity may apply. The applicant was requested to make submissions on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Her attention was drawn to Cartier v. Nairn, 2009 HRTO 2208 and Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered Corp., 2009 HRTO 2180.

4The applicant provided submissions on August 4, 2011. She objected to the NOID. She stated that it was not open to the LTB to ignore the human rights of disabled persons and that it must be held accountable. She stated that the LTB does not have any “definitions or codes” that protects people with disabilities from discrimination.

5For the reasons that follow, I dismiss the Application.

6The Tribunal has applied the doctrine of judicial immunity as a valid restriction on the Tribunal’s authority to inquire into the content of an adjudicative decision: Cartier v. Nairn, As noted in that decision, judicial immunity has been extended to adjudicators. Recently, judicial immunity has also been applied to adjudicators of the LTB: Skanes v. Landlord and Tenant Board, 2010 HRTO 2532.

7The allegations of the applicant relate to a decision made by a member of the LTB in the exercise of his statutory duties. Consequently, the Application is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Application must be dismissed.

8An applicant to the LTB is not without recourse if he or she disagrees with a decision of an LTB adjudicator. She has already requested a review of the decision. The Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 S.O. 2006, c. 17 also provides for an appeal to the courts.

9The Application is dismissed.