Babic v. Kroma Management, 2015 HRTO 15

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dobroslavka Babic

Applicant

-and-

Kroma Management, Landlord and Tenant Board, Mental Health Association and Ralph Pefetto

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: January 6, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 15

Indexed as: Babic v. Kroma Management

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, sexual orientation, family status, and marital status, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The Application concerns things that have happened to the applicant regarding her son and that seem to be about things that she has done to try to protect her son and to ensure his well-being.

3The Code does permit a person to bring an Application on behalf of another person with the consent of the other person. In this case, the applicant has not brought the Application on behalf of her son. The Application concerns only allegations about the interactions between the respondents and the applicant in regard to her concerns about things that have been done or not done to her son.

4The Application has not been delivered to the respondents. The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss inviting the applicant to make submissions about whether the Tribunal has the power to deal with the allegations in the Application. The applicant made submissions. For the reasons that follow, the Application against all of the respondents is dismissed because the Tribunal does not have the power to deal with the allegations in the Application.

Korma Management

5According to the Application, the applicant's son lives in an apartment unit owned by the respondent Korma Management. The applicant does not live in the apartment and is not a tenant of this respondent. The applicant has experienced many difficulties when trying to visit her son. She also believes that bad things have happened to him as a tenant of the building.

6Section 2 of the Code, which prevents discrimination and harassment in respect of occupancy of accommodation, states:

2. (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance.

(2) Every person who occupies accommodation has a right to freedom from harassment by the landlord or agent of the landlord or by an occupant of the same building because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance.

7This section protects the person who occupies an apartment unit but is not intended to protect that person’s mother if she alleges that she has experienced discrimination by the landlord or a tenant, unless she too is a tenant.

8For this reason, the Tribunal does not have the power to deal with the applicant’s allegations against the respondent Korma Management and the Application against that respondent is dismissed.

The Landlord and Tenant Board

9The allegations about the Landlord and Tenant Board are also all about interventions the applicant has made on her son’s behalf. It appears that the Landlord and Tenant Board has told the applicant that the applicant cannot make applications to the Board about her son without her son’s consent.

10The applicant does not agree that with this result. This is not something that this Tribunal has the power to deal with and the Application against the Landlord and Tenant Board must also be dismissed.

Ralph Pefetto

11According to the Application, the respondent Ralph Pefetto is a psychiatrist who has treated the applicant's son. The applicant is not his patient and he has no professional or service relationship with the applicant.

12The Code prohibits discrimination with respect to the provision of medical services by a doctor to a patient but the allegation of discrimination against Dr. Peffetto is that he discriminated against the applicant in regard to her views about the treatment her son should receive. This is not something that the Tribunal has the power to deal with. For this reason, the Application against Dr. Pefetto must also be dismissed.

DECISION

13The Application is dismissed because the Tribunal does not have the power to deal with the allegations in the Application.