HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Cynthia Thomas
Applicant
-and-
Amelin Property Management, Ray Terrell and Morris Alon
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw
Indexed as: Thomas v. Amelin Property Management
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Cynthia Thomas, Applicant
Kevin La-Rose, Representative
Introduction
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to housing because of race, colour, disability and marital status contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The applicant alleges that she was discriminated against by the landlord at her residence, but also names J. Brad Chudyk, a paralegal whose services the respondent Amelin used in Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”) proceedings, as a respondent. The applicant makes no specific allegations of discrimination against him in the Application.
3On January 8, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) the Application as against Mr. Chudyk on the basis it was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. A review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by this individual.
4The applicant responded to the NOID alleging that Mr. Chudyk had served her with an eviction notice on December 2, 2013 which ended up on her apartment floor. She submitted he should have known better, given her anxiety, agoraphobia and emotional issues.
Decision and Analysis
5The Application is dismissed as against Mr. Chudyk.
6An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage before it is delivered to a respondent if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
7The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific social areas (for example, employment, services, contracts, etc.) on the basis of specific protected grounds listed in the Code (for example, disability, gender, sexual orientation and age, etc.). The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside of the grounds listed in the Code.
8The Tribunal has stated that the relationship between a lawyer and an opposing party is not covered by the Code: Belso v. York Region Police, 2009 HRTO 757 and Cooper v. Pinkofskys, 2008 HRTO 390. The allegations against Mr. Chudyk arise in the context of actions undertaken as legal representative of his client the respondent Amelin. Although he is not a lawyer I am satisfied that the relationship between him as the legal representative for the respondent Amelin in LTB proceeding is similar to that of a lawyer and is also not covered by the Code.
9As stated in Cooper, the Tribunal does not have the power to inquire into claims of discrimination about every relationship or interaction, but rather only those that properly fall within one of the five social areas of the Code. In addition, as further stated in Cooper, there is a necessity for some sort of service relationship, as opposed to a mere interaction, between the parties. That is entirely lacking in this case.
10Not only was Mr. Chudyk not providing any services to the applicant, but he also was not involved in any discrimination against her in the area of housing by carrying out the instructions of his clients in the LTB proceedings.
11In conclusion, it appears that the events described in the Application respecting Mr. Chudyk are not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the alleged incidents do not raise discrimination connected to the Code.
Next Steps
12The applicant has withdrawn her LTB application against her landlord. However the landlord’s LTB application seeking to evict the applicant for late payment of rent will be heard on February 20, 2014 application.
13Therefore, by no later than February 27, 2014, the applicant shall provide to the Tribunal a copy of the LTB’s order or advise as to the status of the LTB proceedings. The Tribunal will then consider next steps and may issue further directions to the parties.
order
14The Application as against J. Brad Chudyk is dismissed and the title of proceedings amended accordingly.
15By no later than February 27, 2014, the applicant shall provide to the Tribunal a copy of any order made by the LTB at its February 20, 2014 hearing. If no order is issued the applicant will provide information about the status of the LTB proceeding.
Dated at Toronto, this 19th day of February, 2014.
“Signed By”
Dawn J. Kershaw
Vice-chair```