Sudabe Olfati v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2011 HRTO 17

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Sudabe Olfati

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Community Housing Corporation

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: January 4, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 17

Indexed as: Olfati v. Toronto Community Housing

1The applicant filed her Application on September 8, 2010 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 a number of grounds in housing. In this Application, she advises that she had not also filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) but nonetheless included a copy of a complaint to the Commission which she subsequently withdrew.

2On November 23, 2010, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) to the applicant indicating that her Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the subject-matter of it was the same or substantially the same as a complaint to the Commission. Subsection 53(8) of the Code states:

No application, other than an application under subsection (3) or (5), may be made to the Tribunal if the subject-matter of the application is the same or substantially the same as the subject-matter of a complaint that filed with the Commission under the old Part IV.

3The applicant filed written submissions in which she doe not deny that the subject matter of her Application is the same as that of the complaint she filed with the Commission. Rather, she submits that to dismiss her Application on this basis would result in an injustice and would otherwise be unfair.

4The Application largely concerns events that the applicant alleges took place between 2003 and 2006. They involved her ongoing struggle with the respondent to get what she believed would be appropriate housing, given her needs. In June 2006, the applicant filed a complaint with the Commission about this subject matter. The respondent filed a response to her complaint in September 2006 and in October 2006 the applicant withdrew her complaint to the Commission, which the Commission confirmed by letter to the applicant.

5Subsection 53(8) is concerned with whether the subject-matter of the Application is the same or substantially the same as the previous complaint with the Commission. As indicated by this Tribunal in a previous decision: “Section 53(8) is not restricted to complaints that have been fully investigation or heard by the Commission. It also operates to bar an application based on the same subject-matter as a complaint that has been withdrawn.” Sadaghyani v. Kingston General Hospital, 2008 HRTO 431 at para. 17.

6I find that the subject-matter of this Application is substantially the same as the applicant’s previous complaint to the Commission and, therefore, this Application is barred by subsection 53(8). Accordingly, this Application is dismissed.