Verner v. Reginald Langlois, 2011 HRTO 2019

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Barbara Verner

Applicant

-and-

Reginald Langlois and Monique Langlois

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: November 8, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2019

Indexed as: Verner v. Reginald Langlois

ORAL SUBMISSIONS BY

Barbara Verner, Applicant ) Self-represented

Reginald Langlois and Monique Langlois, ) Self-represented

Respondents )

INTRODUCTION

1The applicant filed this Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”) on February 23, 2010, alleging discrimination with respect to housing on the basis of disability, family status and receipt of public assistance.

2The applicant alleges that from 2009 to 2010 she was subjected to discrimination and harassment by the respondents, her landlords, and in particular Reginald Langlois (“the respondent landlord”). The applicant alleges that the respondent landlord engaged in a course of harassment by insulting and threatening her and attempting to evict her. The applicant alleges that he denied her parking, failed to properly care and service her rental unit and that, in their on-going interactions over these types of issues, he made numerous offensive remarks about the fact that she has a disability and receives provincial disability support benefits.

3On June 17, 2010, the respondents filed a Response, wherein they requested the Tribunal dismiss the Application, pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code, because another proceeding has, in whole or in part, appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. The respondents assert that the allegations raised in the Application were also the subject of a Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”) proceeding and that an LTB Order and Decision, dated May 31, 2011, appropriately dealt with the applicant’s human rights concerns.

4By way of letter dated June 23, 2011, the Tribunal directed that a conference call be scheduled in accordance with section 43(2) of the Code, which provides that the Tribunal shall not finally dispose of an application within its jurisdiction without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions.

5The Tribunal convened a teleconference hearing on October 3, 2011 to hear submissions with respect to section 45.1 of the Code. The Tribunal heard the parties’ oral submissions regarding the respondents’ request that the Application be dismissed on the basis that the LTB appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. The Tribunal received additional documentary materials from both parties after the teleconference.

DECISION

6For the reasons that follow, I find that the LTB appropriately dealt with the substance of the current Application and, as such, the Application should be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code.

ANALYSIS

7Section 45.1 of the Code reads as follows:

The Tribunal may dismiss an 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.

8In Campbell v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 62, the Tribunal discussed the principles that apply when interpreting section 45.1:

• Section 45.1 gives expression to a legislative intent to avoid the duplication of proceedings and the re-litigation of issues that have been dealt with elsewhere;

• The Tribunal should not be overly technical in determining whether another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application;

• The Tribunal does not act as an appellate court from the decisions of other tribunals and need not be satisfied that it would have reached the same conclusion as that reached in the other forum.

9Section 45.1 has been considered in two parts: (1) whether there was another “proceeding” and (2) if so, whether it “appropriately dealt with” the substance of the application. In accordance with the jurisprudence of this Tribunal, there is no question that a LTB hearing is a “proceeding” within the meaning of section 45.1: John v. Gateway Property Management Corporation, 2009 HRTO 2243, Moyal v. Walmer Flats Property Management, 2010 HRTO 877, and Johnson v. Thorold Municipal Non-Profit Housing Corporation, 2011 HRTO 1070. The issue, therefore, is whether the LTB hearing “appropriately dealt with” the subject matter of the Application.

10As noted above, the purpose of section 45.1 is to avoid the duplication of proceedings and re-litigation of facts and issues that have been dealt with elsewhere. There is no dispute that this Application arises from the same facts that provided the basis for the LTB proceeding. The respondents submit that all of the issues raised in the Application were covered by the LTB in its hearing, which lasted almost a full day, and disposed of in the LTB’s six page Decision. The applicant counters that the LTB proceeding did not address her human rights claim because she asserts that she never put her human rights claims before the LTB.

11Based on a review of the applicant’s narrative and the LTB materials, as well as the parties’ oral submissions, I find that the substance of the current Application was appropriately dealt with through the LTB proceeding. In the LTB Decision, the LTB member considered, accepted and rejected various allegations made by the applicant with respect to mistreatment by the personal respondent, including allegations of denial of services, unfair treatment, and offensive remarks, which also form the basis of the current Application.

12I accept the respondents’ submissions that the applicant made substantially similar allegations in this Application as well as her application to the LTB. Specifically, the applicant alleged in both matters that the respondent landlord improperly entered her apartment, harassed and threatened her, failed to properly address her request for services, ridiculed her disability and denied her parking.

13In her submissions, the applicant acknowledged that there was overlap between the proceedings and that it was difficult to tease out the differences; however, the applicant argued that she “went out of [her] way to avoid the subject of discrimination” in the LTB hearing because she was aware of the fact that her human rights Application was outstanding. The applicant contends that, given that she did not mention human rights discrimination in the LTB hearing, it would be perverse for her human rights Application to be prevented from proceeding simply because the LTB adjudicator commented on the respondent’s discriminatory behaviour in the LTB decision.

14Having carefully reviewed the applicant’s LTB application and the LTB Decision, contrary to the applicant’s clam that she did not raise the human rights issues in the LTB proceeding, it appears that the applicant put forth a chronology of incidents and allegations of mistreatment in the LTB matter which were similar to the facts and issues raised in the current Application. For example, the LTB Decision concluded that the respondent landlord did not enter the applicant’s unit illegally and did not withhold services. The LTB Decision determined that the applicant’s allegation with respect to the issue of parking was substantiated and, therefore, she was entitled to compensation for parking.

15The LTB Member also made a number of findings regarding the allegations which form the basis of the current Application, including determining allegations in relation to Code grounds. I find that the dispositions made by the LTB Member regarding harassment were made with fulsome consideration of the evidence and necessarily required contemplation of the allegations at the heart of this Application, namely whether the respondent landlord harassed or treated the applicant unfairly because of her disability, receipt of disability benefits and family status. For example, the applicant alleged that she was harassed by the respondents’ repeated eviction notices. After considering this issue and the evidence, the LTB Decision concluded that the respondents’ attempts to evict the applicant did not constitute harassment.

16I note that other allegations of harassment were thoroughly canvassed by the LTB Member who found that both parties were responsible for the various circumstances. Specifically, in paragraph 3 of the Reasons for Decision, the LTB Member stated his finding that it appeared the applicant “orchestrated the situation” and “provoked” the respondent.

17Contrary to the applicant’s claim that she did not put forward her human rights concerns at the LTB hearing, it is noteworthy that the LTB Decision awarded the applicant monetary compensation because the LTB Member concluded that the respondent landlord engaged in demeaning comments towards the applicant regarding her disability and receipt of disability benefits. In addition to making the financial award in favour of the applicant, the LTB Decision expressly ordered the respondent to cease and desist in engaging in insulting comments towards the applicant, which, as previously noted, the LTB Member found to be harassment on the basis of the applicant’s disability and receipt of disability benefits. As such, it is clear that the LTB proceeding considered and determined the applicant’s allegations of mistreatment and harassment because of the Code-protected grounds of disability and receipt of social assistance.

18While the LTB Decision did not explicitly consider the allegation of family status discrimination, it is apparent that this ground was an underlying factor to the LTB determinations. As stated in Campbell, in assessing whether another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, the Tribunal should not be overly technical. I conclude that the applicant raised her family status concerns before the LTB in that the applicant specifically alleged in her LTB application, as she did in the current Application, that her daughter rarely visited her because of the respondent landlord’s conduct.

19I find the LTB Decision considered the applicant’s family status concerns as part of the findings regarding the alleged interference with the applicant’s enjoyment of the property and also in regards to the parties’ interactions surrounding the applicant’s capacity to pay the rent. I further accept the respondents’ submission that the family status issue was indirectly addressed in the LTB Member’s findings with respect to whether the eviction notices constituted harassment.

20In conclusion, I find it would be inconsistent with the purpose of section 45.1 to allow the current Application to continue given the LTB Decision canvassed and made findings, as well as awarded remedies, with respect to the applicant’s allegations of mistreatment and harassment in relation the alleged Code-grounds. I conclude that the respondents have established that the substance of the current Application was appropriately dealt with by the previous LTB proceeding and that the applicant has not demonstrated that the LTB process failed to adequately take her Code concerns into account.

ORDER

21For the reasons stated above, I am satisfied that the LTB appropriately dealt with the substantive issues that were also raised in this Application. The respondents’ request to dismiss the Application, pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code, is granted. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.