Reynolds v. Landlord and Tenant Board of Ontario, 2016 HRTO 1096

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Sharron-Ann Reynolds

Applicant

-and-

Landlord and Tenant Board of Ontario, Landlord Legal, and Mike and Shannon Mills

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: August 17, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1096

Indexed as: Reynolds v. Landlord and Tenant Board of Ontario

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to housing and services because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant was a tenant. She alleges that during the tenancy there were infestations of mice, ants and fleas. The applicant states that she has a medical condition that meant that she reacted particularly badly to these infestations and that the landlord was aware of this. She further alleges that she was harassed by the landlord during the tenancy. The applicant moved out of the unit on September 30, 2015.

3The applicant applied to the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB), seeking an order that she was entitled to damages because the landlord failed to meet the landlord’s responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

4That Application was heard by a member of the LTB who issued a decision dated October 22, 2015. The member concluded that the landlords breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act.

5The applicant filed another application with the LTB alleging that the landlords had substantially interfered with the applicant’s reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit.

6That application was the subject of a hearing before a member of the LTB on March 7, 2016. According to the decision, at the hearing the applicant asked that the application be withdrawn. The applicant also asked that the hearing be adjourned. The member denied the adjournment request, and granted the request to withdraw the application, but awarded $500 in costs against the applicant.

7The applicant applied to the LTB for a review or reconsideration of that decision, which was denied.

8The landlords filed an claim in small claims court for damages. That claim was dismissed because the issues fell under the jurisdiction of the LTB.

9The Application with this Tribunal was filed on April 28, 2016. It named as respondents the LTB, the landlords and the agent for the landlords who represented the landlords in the legal proceedings arising out of the tenancy.

10The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss with respect to the LTB and Landlord Legal because of a lack of jurisdiction. The Notice noted that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to review the adjudicative decisions of other tribunals and that the actions of a legal representative in representing a party are not covered by the Code.

11On July 13, 2016, the Tribunal issued a second Notice of Intent to Dismiss with respect to the allegations concerning the landlords. That Notice noted that it appeared that the allegations against the landlords may have been appropriately dealt with by the proceeding before the LTB. The Notice referred to section 45.1 of the Code which provides as follows:

45.1 The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

12The applicant has filed submissions in respect of the Notices of Intent to Dismiss and I have reviewed those submissions.

The Application as against the LTB and Landlord Legal

13The Application as against the LTB is dismissed on the grounds that this Tribunal does not have the authority to review the decisions of other adjudicative tribunals. In Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115, a Panel of the Tribunal concluded:

This Tribunal does not have the power to review decisions under benefit programs, including those based on disability, to determine if they are correct under the legislation, regulations, or policies governing the program. An Application related to a denial of benefits should be dismissed if there is not an allegation of discrimination under the Code. A Code application alleging merely that a decision-maker misapplied the rules of a program or misinterpreted medical documentation cannot be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation and has no reasonable prospect of success. In addition, under s. 45.1 of the Code, the Tribunal cannot reevaluate the substantive or procedural correctness of a decision under another statutory scheme.

14With regard to the allegations against Landlord Legal, as noted in the June 8, 2016 Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the Tribunal has state that the relationship between a legal representative and the opposing party is not a relationship that is covered by the Code. The Application as against Landlord Legal is dismissed for that reason.

The Application against the landlords

15The Application as against the landlords is dismissed under section 45.1, quoted above. While the applicant alleges that the issues before the LTB and the allegations as against the landlords in this Application are different, it is apparent that the Application to this Tribunal arises out of the same factual background. While there may be some differences in the way the Application is framed as compared to the application at the LTB, in my view, it is clear that the substance of the LTB application and the Application at this Tribunal are the same.

16I appreciate that the applicant does not agree with the findings of the LTB and does not agree that the LTB dealt appropriately with the applications that were before the LTB. However, the fact that one of the parties does not agree with the outcome or with procedure followed in another proceeding does not give this Tribunal jurisdiction to deal again with matters that have already been decided (see: British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola, 2011 SCC 52).

Decision

17The Application is dismissed because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the allegations as against the Landlord and Tenant Board and Landlord Legal and because the substance of the allegations against the landlords has been appropriately dealt with by another proceeding.