Meandro v. Brisebois, 2012 HRTO 1271

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Eileen Meandro

Applicant

-and-

Robert Brisebois

Respondent

DECisION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: June 27, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1271

Indexed as: Meandro v. Brisebois

Appearances

Eileen Meandro, Applicant ) Self-represented

Robert Brisebois, Respondent ) Self-represented

1This is a decision in respect of an Application filed on December 16, 2011, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Pursuant to a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) dated February 2, 2012 and Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal directed, on its own initiative, that a summary hearing be held to determine whether this Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it would succeed.

2A teleconference summary hearing was held on April 24, 2012. I heard evidence from the applicant and from the respondent. I have concluded that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.

3The application alleges discrimination on the ground of disability in respect of housing accommodation. The applicant indicated that she has a kidney disability and also stated that there is “nothing mentally wrong with me and my hearing is fine”.

4In the section of the application which asks the applicant to explain what happened, the applicant wrote “I was criticized for speaking out… my rights-- not to be laughed at, respect, to be treated as a human being.” The date of the incident is given as “Nov Dec 2011 17”. The applicant indicated that there had been a proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board. Later in the Application she states that “I was given no chance to explain to the court I was laughed at and landlord did all the talking through the whole court proceeding”.

5At the request of the Tribunal the applicant filed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated November 18, 2011. The decision states that “[the applicant] applied for an order determining that [the respondent] harassed obstructed coerced threatened or interfered with her”. Under the heading “Determinations”, the order states that [the applicant] did not present any reliable evidence of any acts of the Landlord that would be in breach of Landlord’s obligations.” The order indicates that [the applicant] has filed several applications with the Board and with the Human Rights Tribunal against the Landlord. All were either dismissed or withdrawn at a hearing. Find that the attendance application is frivolous and totally devoid of merit.” There was an award for costs against the applicant in the amount of $100. The applicant stated that she was not bothered by the costs award: “if you lose something you have to pay”.

6The respondent denied having laughed at the applicant, although he recalled that he might have laughed during the proceedings when the applicant stated that she had never seen the lease that she had signed.

7Although she has named only her landlord as the respondent in this matter, the applicant’s submissions were partly concerned with her feeling that she was not treated with respect by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) at her hearing. Insofar as she related the details of what occurred, it appears that her main concern is that the LTB preferred the evidence of the respondent, and that she was not successful in establishing her claim under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, SO 2006, c 17.

8To succeed in an Application, an applicant must be able to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent acted or failed to act in a way that caused adverse consequences to him or her, as well as a link between a respondent’s alleged actions or omissions and a Code ground. In this case, the applicant has alleged that the respondent “did all the talking” at the LTB hearing, but otherwise did not give any information that would indicate a link between this action and the cited ground of discrimination under the Code. For this reason, the Application is dismissed.