Maria Rots v. Sistering Drop In Centre and John King, 2016 HRTO 566

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Maria Rots

Applicant

-and-

Sistering Drop In Centre and John King

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Genevieve Debane

Date: April 29, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 566

Indexed As: Rots v. Sistering Drop In Centre

1The applicant filed an Application alleging a breach of the Code by the respondents with respect to services on the basis of disability, sex, family status and reprisal. The Application has not yet been delivered to the respondents.

2On March 29, 2016, the Tribunal issued to the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application, for a number of reasons including that it appeared that it was plain and obvious that it did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and that the applicant had filed a Claim at Small Claims Court against the respondents. The applicant was asked to file submissions in which she also expands her allegations to include discrimination on the basis of creed and for being on social assistance. The applicant did not file submissions addressing the s. 34(11) issue.

Section 34(11)

3Section 34(11) of the Code provides as follows:

A person who believes that one of his or her rights under Part I has been infringed may not make an application under subsection (1) with respect to that right if,

(a) a civil proceeding has been commenced in a court in which the person is seeking an order under section 46.1 with respect to the alleged infringement and the proceeding has not been finally determined or withdrawn; or

(b) a court has finally determined the issue of whether the right has been infringed or the matter has been settled.

4The amendments to the Code included that Courts in Ontario, in certain circumstances, have the power and jurisdiction to remedy allegations that a person’s Code rights have been infringed. However, the Code specifically prohibits a person from seeking remedies, for human rights violations, in both Court and at the Tribunal. An applicant has to elect either to have allegations of Code violations addressed before the Tribunal or the Court.

5Section 34(11) goes to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to accept and continue to process an Application that has been filed. In determining whether the Application is barred, the Tribunal will have to assess whether the applicant is seeking a remedy for an infringement of the Code pursuant to section 46.1(1). If so the Tribunal will then have to determine whether the civil proceeding has been finally determined or withdrawn. If the requirements of subsection 34(11) are met then the Application is barred and the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to continue to proceed with the Application.

6I have reviewed the Claim filed by the applicant against the respondents. In this claim the applicant raises issues that are substantial similar to those raised in the Application, including that she has been discriminated against by the respondents. I am satisfied that in the applicant has in the court claim raised Code related issues and is seeking remedies from the respondents for these breaches.

7As such I find that the applicant is barred pursuant to section 34(11) of the Code from filing this Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.