Dhir v. MacLean, 2014 HRTO 1680

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Poonam Dhir

Applicant

-and-

Maureen MacLean

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: November 20, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1680

Indexed as: Dhir v. MacLean

APPEARANCES

Poonam Dhir, Applicant

Self-represented

Maureen MacLean, 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 disability.

2The applicant rented a furnished room from the respondent and alleges that the respondent refused to accommodate her disability-related needs. The respondent denies the allegation and asserts that she went above and beyond what would be considered reasonable to assist the applicant in feeling comfortable in her surroundings. The respondent asserts that her rights have been violated and seeks $50,000 in compensation for defamation and costs associated with defending the Application.

3The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings on May 23, 2014. The respondent filed a Response to a Request for an Order on July 21, 2014, opposing the Request. The Tribunal deferred addressing the Request because mediation was scheduled in the matter on September 10, 2014. The Application was not resolved in mediation and the matter shall proceed to hearing.

4The applicant’s request is twofold. First, the applicant submitted that the respondent’s request for compensation in the Response amounts to a reprisal under section 8 of the Code and should be dismissed. Second, the applicant requested to increase the remedy she seeks by $16,000. The applicant submitted that this amount reflects the loss of employment income and disbursements she has incurred in preparing her case. The applicant, who is a student, submitted that preparing for the Application has taken all of her time and prevented her from obtaining a summer job in 2014. The applicant submitted that she anticipated spending the summer months gathering documentation and evidence to prepare for mediation and, assuming mediation was not successful, the hearing. The applicant estimated that she would have earned $15,000 to $18,000 in employment income at a summer job. The applicant also seeks an additional $1,000 for the cost of preparation of documentation and disbursements, which reflects copying costs and the cost of obtaining reports from her doctors.

5The respondent’s submissions largely repeat her position in the Response and do not address the applicant’s Request.

Analysis and Decision

6The Tribunal’s remedial authority is set out in section 45.2 of the Code as follows:

45.2 (1) On an Application under section 34, the Tribunal may make one or more of the following orders if the Tribunal determines that a party to the Application has infringed a right under Part I of another party to the Application:

1. An order directing the party who infringed the right to pay monetary compensation to the party whose right was infringed for loss arising out of the infringement, including compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

2. An order directing the party who infringed the right to make restitution to the party whose right was infringed, other than through monetary compensation, for loss arising out of the infringement, including restitution for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

3. An order directing any party to the Application to do anything that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the party ought to do to promote compliance with this Act.

7Accordingly, the Tribunal’s may order remedies to compensate for the infringement of a right under the Code. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award damages for defamation or for anything other than a violation of a Code right. Consequently, there is no basis for the respondent’s request for compensation, which is not based on an alleged Code right. In any event, the Tribunal’s procedure does not provide for a “counterclaim” such as the respondent has purported to advance. The Tribunal also does not have authority to award damages for the costs associated with litigation of an Application.

8The applicant’s request to increase the damages she seeks in the Application is dismissed for similar reasons. The Tribunal regularly awards compensation in respect of lost employment income caused by the violation of an applicant’s Code rights. In this case, however, the applicant requests additional damages to compensate her for the time and expense she estimates she must commit to litigating her Application. Such costs would not be the result of a breach of her Code rights and in any event the Tribunal has no authority to award costs for the expense of litigation. Consequently, there is also no basis for the applicant’s request for additional damages.

Order

9The Tribunal orders as follows:

1. There is no basis for the respondent’s claim for compensation; and,

2. The applicant’s request to increase the damages she seeks is dismissed.

10I am not seized.