Kondramachine v. Landlord and Tenant Board, 2014 HRTO 189

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Dmitri Kondramachine

Applicant

-and-

Landlord and Tenant Board, Ruth Carey, Kim Bugby, Sylvie Charron, Eli Fellman, Murray Wm. Graham, Sean Henry, Jonelle Van Delft and Guy Savoie

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman

Date: February 10, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 189

Indexed as: Kondramachine v. Landlord and Tenant Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Dmitri Kondramachine, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant alleges that in the course of conducting a hearing at the Landlord and Tenant Board the personal respondent, Ruth Carey, asked his mother if she is Russian. When his mother indicated that she was, Ms. Carey is alleged to have laughed at this response in a manner that the applicant construed as discriminatory.

2He alleges that he then asked the other personal respondents, all members or employees of the Landlord and Tenant Board, to investigate this alleged discrimination, but they would not.

3The applicant then brought this Application, alleging discrimination with respect to services because of place of origin, citizenship and ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

4Upon receiving his Application the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on January 3, 2014. That letter explains that the Application may be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because the events in this Application arose in the context of an adjudicative process. The letter further explains that the Tribunal has ruled that it has no jurisdiction to hear applications against courts and tribunals based on the execution of adjudicative duties or decision-making because of the doctrine of judicial or adjudicative immunity. In light of this the applicant was directed to make submissions as to why his Application should not be dismissed.

5His submissions cite the Canadian Bill of Rights, S.C. 1960, c. 44 (the "Bill of Rights") and he argues that the provisions of the Bill of Rights trump the principle of adjudicative immunity. Based on this he maintains that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with his Application.

6He also argues that the principle of adjudicative immunity has no application in circumstances where the adjudicative body did not adhere to the principles of natural justice. In this regard he cites the decision of the Divisional Court in Glengarry Memorial Hospital v. Ontario, 1993 CanLII 9434 (ON CTGDDC), 99 DLR (4th) 682 (Ont. Gen. Div.) and the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Tremblay v. Commission des Affaires Sociales, 1992 1992 CanLII 1135 (SCC), 90 DLR (4th) 609 at 618-619 ("Tremblay").

7The applicant's arguments on the law fail for the following reasons. The Bill of Rights is a federal statute and only has application to the interpretation and application of other federal statutes. It does not apply to the interpretation and application of provincial statutes, nor to the adjudicative activities of tribunals constituted under provincial statutes (unless those tribunals are interpreting and applying a federal statute). The Landlord and Tenant Board is constituted under provincial law and there is no reason to believe that the Bill of Rights has any bearing on the facts and issues raised in this Application.

8The decision cited by the applicant in Glengarry Memorial Hospital v. Ontario, 1993 CanLII 9434 (ON CTGDDC), 99 DLR (4th) 682 (Ont. Gen. Div.) was a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court. On the issue of natural justice this decision was subsequently overturned by a three judge panel of the Divisional Court (see 1993 CanLII 5423). The panel in that case distinguished the facts of the case it was dealing with from the facts of the case addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Tremblay.

9In Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115 the Tribunal emphasised that it is not the role of the Tribunal to sit in review of the decisions of other adjudicative bodies because to do so would usurp the function of the Divisional Court. In this case the alleged actions of Ms. Carey arose in the course of a Landlord and Tenant Board hearing. Any alleged failures of the other respondents to act in response to the applicant's complaint all flow directly from the alleged actions of Ms. Carey. I find that the principle of adjudicative immunity as set out in Seberras applies here and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with any part of this Application. For this reason the Application is dismissed.

order

10The Application is dismissed.