Maximova v. Lacelle, 2014 HRTO 430

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Elena Maximova Applicant

-and-

Darren Lacelle and Lina Lacelle Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: March 27, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 430 Indexed as: Maximova v. Lacelle

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Elena Maximova, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This Application was filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), and alleges discrimination with respect to the occupancy of accommodation on the basis of ancestry and receipt of public assistance, and reprisal.

2The Application names as respondents: the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “LTB”); the applicant’s landlord, Darren Lacelle, and her landlord’s spouse, Lina Lacelle; the Department of Planning, Parks and Recreation for the City of Cornwall; and, J. Douglas Grenky. The Application was received by the Tribunal on September 3, 2013, and other documents relating to the Application were received earlier on August 28, 2013.

3On November 13, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) the Application, on the basis that it appeared that the Application is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for the following reasons:

(i) the Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination described in the Application, and the applicant did not appear to have cited facts that constitute “good faith” within the meaning of the Tribunal’s case law;

(ii) with respect to the respondent, LTB, the Tribunal has stated 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; and,

(iii) with respect to the respondents, Department of Planning, Parks and Recreation, and J. Douglas Grenky, a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify and specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by these respondents.

4The applicant sought and was granted two extensions of time for filing submissions in response to the NOID, and filed submissions on January 20, 2014.

ANALYSIS

Judicial Immunity

5The Tribunal will only dismiss an Application at a preliminary stage where it is plain and obvious that the Application is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

6In the present Application, in approximately 24 of the 74 paragraphs in the applicant’s narrative, the applicant raises concerns about the manner in which LTB hearings were conducted by three different LTB adjudicators. The applicant also provided approximately 16 pages of submissions concerning the manner in which LTB adjudicators conducted hearings that she participated in as a party. Throughout the applicant’s allegations and submissions, the applicant essentially alleges that the LTB adjudicators favoured her landlord. The applicant’s allegations concerning the LTB do not appear to engage any grounds of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

7In any event, I find that it is plain and obvious that the Application, as it relates to the LTB, is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction due to the application of the doctrine of judicial or adjudicative immunity. See Taucar v. University of Western Ontario, 2013 HRTO 597 at paras. 37 – 54. The applicant’s allegations concerning the LTB clearly relate to the execution of adjudicative duties and decision making by LTB adjudicators. The doctrine of judicial or adjudicative immunity prohibits legal proceedings against judicial and quasi-judicial actors that are based on their actions as adjudicators or decision-makers. The doctrine is rooted in the principle of judicial independence, the purpose of which is to ensure that judicial and quasi-judicial actors are free to execute their decision-making duties with independence and without fear of consequences. See Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered, 2009 HRTO 2180, and Cartier v. Nairn, 2009 HRTO 2208. The Tribunal has previously held that judicial or adjudicative immunity applies to adjudicators of the LTB. See McMurtie v. Landlord and Tenant Board, 2011 HRTO 1548.

Acts of discrimination within the meaning of the [Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html)

8In her Application, the applicant alleges that a property standards officer from the Department of Planning, Parks and Recreation of the City of Cornwall lied at a hearing before the LTB on March 21, 2012, and refused to give her an inspection report from an inspection on March 3, 2011. The applicant also alleges that she obtained a legal aid certificate and found a lawyer, J. Douglas Grenky, but that he did not provide her with any legal consultation. In her submissions in response to the NOID, the applicant explains that the property standards officer and his co-workers decided to help her landlord evict her by not giving her an inspection report that she was entitled to. The applicant did not provide any submissions with respect to the respondent, J. Douglas Grenky.

9The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate general claims of unfairness or concerns with customer service that do not have a nexus with a ground under the Code. In the present case, the applicant has not explained how the conduct of the respondents, Department of Planning, Parks and Recreation, and J. Douglas Grenky, relates in any way to a Code ground, or why she believes that she was discriminated against by these respondents based on the Code grounds cited in the Application.

10In my view, it is plain and obvious that the Application, as it relates to the respondents, Department of Planning, Parks and Recreation, and J. Douglas Grenky, is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Delay

11Section 34 of the Code provides:

(1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,

(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.

(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

12In her Application, the applicant alleges that the date of the last incident to which the Application relates is August 17, 2012, when she was evicted by her landlord. In her submissions in response to the NOID, the applicant explains that she submitted her Application to the Tribunal electronically around noon on August 17, 2013. She submits that when she later contacted the Tribunal by telephone on August 22, 2012, she discovered that her Application was not received by the Tribunal. She explains that she lost the content of her Application and had to rewrite her lengthy Application and that it took her about two weeks to send the Application again. The applicant submits that her circumstances were extremely difficult after the eviction, that she has been living in a shelter and experiencing huge stress, and that she tried hard to submit her Application on time.

13In my view, based on the information before me, it is not plain and obvious that the Application is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for reasons of delay within the meaning of the Code. This is not a final decision regarding delay.

ORDER

14The Application as against the respondents, LTB, Department of Planning, Parks and Recreation, and J. Douglas Grenky, is dismissed, and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

15The Tribunal shall deliver the Application, the applicant’s response to the NOID and a copy of this Interim Decision to the respondents. The remaining respondents, Darren Lacelle and Lina Lacelle, need not file a Response to the Application at this point in time. The Tribunal will issue a separate Case Assessment Direction to the remaining parties addressing the next steps in this matter.

16I am not seized.