Chris Allen v. Jean-Pierre Juneau, 2016 HRTO 1192

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Chris Allen
Applicant

-and-

Jean-Pierre Juneau
Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Chris Allen
Applicant

-and-

2117125 Ontario Inc. o/a Caldwell and Associates Property Management and Named Individual
Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Chris Allen
Applicant

-and-

Trustees of CMHA - Ottawa Branch and Named Individual Respondents
Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume
Date: September 12, 2016
Citation: 2016 HRTO 1192
Indexed as: Allen v. Juneau

APPEARANCES

Chris Allen, Applicant
No one appearing

Jean-Pierre Juneau, 2117125 Ontario Inc. o/a Caldwell and Associates Property Management, and Named Individual, Respondents
David Lyman, Counsel

Trustees of CMHA - Ottawa Branch and Various Individual Respondents
Stephanie Doucet, Counsel

1This Decision addresses three Applications which were filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). There are a total of two organizational respondents and 11 individual respondents named in the Applications. The applicant alleges discrimination on the basis of disability, sex and receipt of public assistance in the context of a residential tenancy.

2The name Chris Allen is unknown to all of the respondents in this matter. The respondent believes that the applicant is a person named Ted Odenkirchen who, until recently, was occupying an apartment at 73 Queen Victoria Street. I am satisfied, based on the submissions of counsel and the documents produced confirming the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Board proceeding, all of which correspond with the allegations set out in the Applications filed before this Tribunal, that Chris Allen is the same person as Ted Odenkirchen. I refer to Mr. Allen/Odenkirchen as the applicant throughout this Decision.

3One of the Applications is against Mr. Juneau, who is the landlord of the building at 73 Queen Victoria Street. A second Application was filed against the property management company, Caldwell and Associates, and one of its employees. The third Application is against CMHA, which provides a rental supplement to a person named Mr. Odenkirchen but has no record of Chris Allen. The individual respondents named in the Application with CMHA have had no contact with the applicant.

4The applicant filed these three Applications in a name which was unknown to the individual respondents. The individual respondents, other than Mr. Juneau, were not named in the decision of the LTB and have not had contact with the applicant and there are no particulars to support allegations of discrimination against them. As a result, I do not consider it necessary to name them in either the style of cause or body of the Decision.

5These three Applications were joined and set down for an in-person summary hearing by Case Assessment Direction dated November 4, 2015. The Applications lack any particulars which would support the applicant's allegation that he has experienced discrimination with respect to disability, sex and receipt of public assistance.

6The summary hearing was originally scheduled to take place on April 19, 2016. On April 18, 2016, the applicant telephoned the Tribunal and requested an adjournment of the hearing because he was ill. The request was granted.

7On May 5, 2016, the Tribunal mailed a request to the parties asking them to advise the Tribunal of their availability for a new summary hearing date. The request was mailed to the applicant's last known address and indicated that if the parties failed to provide their availability a new date would be chosen by the Tribunal. That letter was not returned to the Tribunal.

8The applicant did not respond to the request of May 5, 2016. On May 20, 2016, the respondents provided their mutually agreeable dates. The hearing was rescheduled for June 30, 2016, to commence at 1:30 p.m. A Notice of Confirmation was sent to the parties on May 24, 2016.

9On June 30, 2016, the applicant was not in attendance. Submissions were received from Mr. Lyman and Ms. Doucet on behalf of the respondents.

10Mr. Lyman provided the Tribunal with a copy of an Order of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) dated February 8, 2016. The order relates to an application for eviction of Mr. Odenkirchen by the landlord at 73 Queen Victoria Street.

11The parties agreed to a series of final orders at the LTB proceeding, including the termination of tenancy and an order to vacate the unit on or before April 30, 2016. The landlord agreed to pay the applicant a sum of money and the tenant agreed to withdraw two of the three Applications before this Tribunal: 2015-20469-I and 2015-20470-I.

12Mr. Lyman indicated that the applicant appeared to have removed his belongings in accordance with this order by April 30, 2016.

13The respondents seek an order dismissing this Application. I agree for the following reasons.

14The applicant filed these Applications using a name which is unknown to the respondents. There are no particulars which would support the allegations of discrimination. The purpose of the summary hearing was to provide a forum for the applicant to explain his allegations so that the Tribunal could determine whether they should proceed to a hearing on the merits. Without further particulars the Applications cannot proceed because they have no reasonable prospect of success.

15I cannot say with certainty that the applicant received the letter of May 5, 2016 from the Tribunal requesting that the parties advise the Tribunal of their availability for a new summary hearing date; however, the letter was not returned to the Tribunal. Despite agreeing on February 8, 2016 to vacate his apartment by April 30, 2016, the applicant did not advise the Tribunal that he would be moving nor did he provide an alternate address for service of documents as required by the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. The applicant did not do so and service of the notice was sent to the applicant's last known address. The applicant has also not taken the steps required of him to withdraw the two applications he agreed to withdraw during the LTB proceeding.

16The applicant indicated at the commencement of these proceedings that he did not have a telephone or email. The Tribunal has no method for contacting the applicant at this time.

17Mr. Lyman and Ms. Doucet indicated that their respective clients have made efforts to locate the applicant. The CMHA in particular has attempted to locate the applicant for the purpose of continuing to provide him with a rental supplement and assistance in his search for alternative accommodation if necessary.

18I recognize that the applicant self-identifies as a person living with significant mental health disabilities; however, there does not appear to be anything the Tribunal can do at this time other than to dispose of these Applications.

19In all of the circumstances I am satisfied that these Applications should be dismissed for two reasons: first, without further particulars the allegations contained in the Applications have no reasonable prospect of success; and second, the applicant's failure to appear and provide contact information as required by the Tribunal's Rules constitutes abandonment of these Applications.

ORDER

20All three Applications are dismissed.