Scott v. Otter Creek Co-operative Homes Inc., 2013 HRTO 1484

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Danya Scott

Applicant

-and-

Otter Creek Co-operative Homes Inc. and Sandy Carter

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION Decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: August 30, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1484

Indexed as: Scott v. Otter Creek Co-operative Homes Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Danya Scott, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Application was filed on May 1, 2013 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 on the basis of race, colour, disability and family status.

2The Application alleges that the applicant’s subsidized rent was withdrawn and her rent was increased due to the negligence of the respondents with respect to processing her income verification. The Application also alleges that the respondents unfairly sought to have the applicant and her family evicted and that the eviction proceedings were taking place before the courts in July 2013. The applicant further alleged that the individual respondent made a derogatory remark with respect to the applicant’s race and colour.

3Along with the Application, the applicant filed a Request for Interim Remedy. Although the applicant did not indicate what specific interim remedial order she sought, it appeared that the applicant was requesting that her Application be processed prior to the July 3, 2013 eviction proceedings. The applicant stated that she wished for the Tribunal to hear and resolve the issues because she believed the respondents would be successful in the eviction proceeding by not informing the court of the full circumstances surrounding her income verification.

4By way of an Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 837, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s request for an Interim Remedy. The Tribunal noted that the applicant was essentially asking the Tribunal to expedite the determination of the merits of the Application in the upcoming months. The Tribunal concluded that it would not be just or appropriate to do so.

5On June 4, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration. The applicant requests that the Tribunal reconsider its interim remedy decision on the basis that there are new facts and evidence and other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of the Tribunal decisions. The applicant asks the Tribunal to require the respondents to process her rental subsidy and to stay the eviction.

6On August 21, 2013, the applicant filed with the Tribunal a copy of a Judgement of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice with respect to the eviction proceeding. The Superior Court of Justice ordered the termination of the applicant’s occupancy rights with the respondent cooperative and required that the applicant pay the respondent cooperative approximately $14,000 in arrears of housing charges and compensation, as well as $20,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

DECISION

7Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with authority to reconsider its decisions. Further to its power to make rules, the Tribunal has issued Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) governing Requests for Reconsideration. Most relevant to this Reconsideration Decision is Rule 26 which states:

26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision

[emphasis added]

8As highlighted above, Rule 26 of the Tribunal Rules explicitly states that a party may request reconsideration only of a final decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s Rules do not contemplate the reconsideration of an interim decision. The Tribunal in Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, stated a final decision is one that “disposes of some or all of the central issues in the complaint between the parties”.

9The applicant seeks reconsideration of an interim decision denying her request for interim remedy. By its very nature an interim decision addressing a request for interim relief is not a final decision disposing of the central issues in the application. The application continues in the Tribunal process and, not only do the allegations of discrimination remain in dispute, but an applicant may re-apply for interim relief as circumstances develop. On that basis alone, this reconsideration request may be dismissed.

10I note that applicant now seeks the Tribunal’s assistance in staying the eviction process triggered as a result of the Superior Court of Justice order terminating the applicant’s occupancy rights. The applicant’s request is in effect an attempt to review or appeal the judgement of the Superior Court finding that there were grounds for eviction in favour of the respondent cooperative. This Tribunal does not have the authority to review such a court order and the applicant may seek recourse through the proper channels of review or appeal.

11The request for reconsideration is dismissed. The Tribunal will process this Application in its regular course.

12I am not seized of this matter.