Vargianitis v. Landlord and Tenant Board, 2015 HRTO 356

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Joanne Vargianitis

Applicant

-and-

Landlord and Tenant Board

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw
Date: March 20, 2015
Citation: 2015 HRTO 356
Indexed as: Vargianitis v. Landlord and Tenant Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Joanne Vargianitis, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1The applicant alleges that in the course of conducting a hearing at the respondent Landlord and Tenant Board ("LTB"), the respondent, Karen Wallace, who was the LTB adjudicator ("the adjudicator") made a decision that the applicant entered the tenants' apartment and ordered the applicant to pay the tenants damages based on photos from the tenant that the applicant alleges she did not see. She asks the Tribunal to ensure she gets copies of the tenants' photos.

2She also alleges because of a hearing disability she asked the adjudicator to speak slowly and loudly. She believes she spoke to the adjudicator loudly which aggravated the adjudicator who then made the adverse decision.

3After the conclusion of the LTB proceedings, the applicant brought this Application, alleging discrimination with respect to housing (although it appears she may mean "services") because of disability and gender identity contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

4Upon receiving her Application the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on January 29, 2015. 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.

5By way of submissions the applicant sent a letter that indicated judicial immunity should apply only when an adjudicator reaches a decision in good faith and not when there is bias, frivolous vexation and misconduct by the adjudicator.

decision

6In Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115 the Tribunal emphasised 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.

7In this case the applicant's main allegation that she did not get copies of photos is a decision an adjudicator made in the course of a Landlord and Tenant Board hearing, which falls into the category of adjudicative immunity. The applicant's allegation that she asked the adjudicator to speak loudly and slowly and that the adjudicator made an adverse decision against her because the applicant spoke to her loudly also falls into the category of decisions that are made by an adjudicator in another proceeding. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of another adjudicative Tribunal.

8The applicant's allegation that the adjudicator did not act in good faith does not change the fact that this Tribunal cannot review the decisions made by the LTB or the LTB adjudicator.

order

9The Application is dismissed.