Pal v. 723736 Ontario Ltd. and Belmont Properties Ltd., 2012 HRTO 1854

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

George Pal Applicant

-and-

723736 Ontario Ltd. and Belmont Properties Ltd. Respondents

Decision

Adjudicator: Judith Keene Date: September 28, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1854 Indexed as: Pal v. 723736 Ontario Ltd.

Written Submissions

723736 Ontario Ltd. and Belmont Properties Ltd, Respondents Kristin Ley, Counsel

Introduction

1This is a Decision in respect of an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to housing accommodation because of disability. The Application contains several allegations that do not appear to be Code issues; the part of the Application that contains allegations relevant to the Code is the respondents' (respectively the landlord and the property manager of the housing accommodation) alleged refusal to permit installation of a lift, power door opener and handicap accessible washroom. Hearing dates have been scheduled for October 9 and 10, 2012.

2On August 15, 2012, the respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (the "Request") to dismiss the Application under section 45.1 of the Code as a matter that has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding. The respondents' submissions include a Decision of the Ontario Landlord Tenant Board (the "LTB") dated June 27, 2012.

3The applicant did not file a Response to the respondents' Request, and the date for doing so has passed.

4Section 45.1 of the Code provides 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

5There is no dispute that a hearing before the LTB is a "proceeding" for the purposes of section 45.1. The Tribunal has found that an LTB hearing meets the requirements of section 45.1 in a number of decisions (see, for example, Carlos v. 1174364 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 403; Verner v. Langlois, 2011 HRTO 2019; 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. I find no reason to depart from that conclusion in the current case.

6In detailed reasons, the LTB made findings with respect to all the issues raised in this Application, including the issues that engage the Code. The LTB member found that the respondent landlord had failed to accommodate the disability-related needs of the applicant in respect to both the accessibility of the housing accommodation generally and the need for a handicap accessible washroom. The LTB made a monetary award in favour of the applicant and also ordered that an abatement of rent would continue if the renovations needed to accommodate the tenant's disabilities were not completed by June 30, 2012.

7In Campbell v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 62, the Tribunal discussed some of 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.

8I conclude that the respondents have established that the substance of this Application has been appropriately dealt with in the proceeding before the LTB and thus the requirements of s. 45.1 of the Code have been met.

Order

9For the reasons stated above, I am satisfied that the LTB appropriately dealt with the substance of this Application. The respondents' request to dismiss the Application, pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code, is granted. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed. The above noted hearing dates are cancelled.