Karen Jubenville v. The Landlord and Tenant Board, 2015 HRTO 496

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Karen Jubenville

Applicant

-and-

The Landlord and Tenant Board

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: April 20, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 496

Indexed as: Jubenville v. The Landlord and Tenant Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Karen Jubenville, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to housing because of disability and receipt of public assistance contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Tribunal has not sent the Application to the respondent for Response.

2The Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss dated March 12, 2015 (“the NOID”). In the NOID, the Tribunal explained that the Application may be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the events in the Application arose in the context of an adjudicative process. The NOID 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 file submissions as to why her Application should not be dismissed.

3The applicant filed a 12 page handwritten letter as her submissions in response to the NOID. Essentially, she claims that the respondent failed to address the issues that she has had with her previous landlord, specifically compensation and reinstatement and she feels that she was treated unfairly not just by her former landlord, but also by the respondent. She also submits that she filed a claim with the Small Claims Court, which was ultimately dismissed by the Court stating that it had no jurisdiction to address her issues. She provided copies of orders issued by various members of the respondent addressing the concerns that she has had with her landlord, including orders dated November 12, 2010, January 20, 2011, May 17, 2011 (with accompanying reasons), and October 29, 2014 as well as some documentation pertaining to her Small Claims Court proceeding.

4In Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115 (“Seberras”), 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. This principle has been followed in other Tribunal decisions where an applicant files an application against the respondent with respect to decisions or orders that its members have issued. See, for example, Kondramachine v. Landlord and Tenant Board, 2014 HRTO 189 (“Kondramachine”) and Vargianitis v. Landlord and Tenant Board, 2015 HRTO 356 (“Vargianitis”).

5In this case, the applicant alleges that the respondent has failed to address the concerns that she has with her former landlord, and she disagrees with the orders that the respondent has issued. I find that the principle of adjudicative immunity as set out in Seberras, and applied in Kondramachine and Vargiantis, above, applies here and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with any part of this Application.

6For this reason the Application is dismissed.