Hopps v. Karimi, 2014 HRTO 1026

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lewis Hopps

Applicant

-and-

Said Karimi

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: July 14, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1026

Indexed as: Hopps v. Karimi

APPEARANCES

Lewis Hopps, Applicant

Self-represented

Said Karimi, Respondent

Self-represented

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to occupancy of accommodation because of race, ethnic origin and reprisal. The applicant did not seek creed as a claimed ground under question 5 in the Application form, but it is clear on the face of the Application that the applicant also alleges discrimination because of creed.

2In the Application, the applicant states that the respondent has harassed him since the respondent took possession of the building in which he lives with a view to having the applicant leave. The applicant states that the respondent has restricted his use of the property and he feels confined to his apartment. The applicant states that prior to Thanksgiving the respondent made a statement to the effect that he wants the applicant to leave because the applicant’s lifestyle does not conform to the respondent’s religious beliefs and ethnic background.

3The applicant filed with his Application documents indicating that he had complained to the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “LTB”), alleging that the respondent subjected him to harassment in order to induce him to leave his apartment. The LTB dismissed the applicant’s application in a decision dated August 12, 2013. By letter dated March 12, 2014, the Tribunal directed that half day hearing by teleconference would be scheduled to hear submissions regarding whether the Tribunal should dismiss the Application because another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. The Tribunal held the hearing by teleconference on July 8, 2014.

4The applicant submitted that the Application concerns incidents that occurred after the LTB issued its order on August 12, 2013. The applicant submitted that the issue before the LTB was the respondent’s alleged harassment, not the loss of access to facilities. The applicant submitted that, since the LTB decision, the respondent has prevented him from using the front porch and backyard of the building, has removed his recycling bins, taken his parking spot away and removed his lawn furniture. The applicant also submitted that human rights issues were not raised at the LTB because the respondent at that point had not given him any reason to conclude that his behaviour was connected to prohibited grounds of discrimination. The applicant submitted that the respondent made comments to the effect that he only wanted to rent to Muslims after the LTB decision.

5The respondent submitted that the LTB dealt with the substance of the Application. The respondent submitted that the LTB addressed the applicant’s allegations that he came to the applicant’s apartment and harassed him and dismissed the complaint. The respondent acknowledged, however, that human rights issues were not raised before the LTB and that applicant’s other allegations were also different.

Analysis and Decision

6It is well established that an application determined by the LTB is a “proceeding” for the purposes of section 45.1 of the Code. See Wachmenko v. Chartwell Master Care LP (o/a Chartwell Collegiate Heights Retirement Residence), 2014 HRTO 908.

7Accordingly, the issue is whether the LTD “appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.” When dealing with this issue, the Tribunal will consider whether the Application arises from the same facts that provided the basis for the other proceeding, whether the substance of the issues raised in each forum was substantially the same, and whether the matter raised was “appropriately dealt with” in the other proceeding. See Robinson v. Spanish (Town), 2009 HRTO 1484.

8There does not appear to be any dispute that the applicant made different allegations before the LTB than are set out in this Application. The applicant’s application to the LTB and the LTB’s decision confirm that facts alleged by the applicant in that proceeding were that the respondent attended at his apartment unexpectedly on several occasions, that the respondent made a veiled threat, that the respondent tricked two other tenants into signing notices of termination and that the respondent cut down trees in the front yard. There is also no dispute that the applicant did not raise human rights issues before the LTB. The applicant submitted that the connection between the respondent’s actions and Code grounds also arose after the LTD decision. Consequently, it appears that this Application is not based on the same facts that provided the basis for the LTB’s decision and that human rights issues arose after the LTB decision.

9In these circumstances, I cannot find that the LTB appropriately dealt with the substance of this Application and the Application shall proceed. The respondent shall file a Response to the Application within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision. If the applicant intends to prove a version of the facts different from those set out in the respondent’s Response or any other new matter raised in the Response, then he must file with the Tribunal and deliver to the respondent a Reply (Form 3) within 14 days after the Response is sent to the applicant.

10I am not seized.