Phillips v. Lal; Phillips v. Kokkat, 2017 HRTO 1194

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Louise Phillips

Applicant

-and-

Irene Lal

Respondent

Louise Phillips

Applicant

-and-

Abraham Kokkat

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw
Date: September 12, 2017
Citation: 2017 HRTO 1194
Indexed as: Phillips v. Lal; Phillips v. Kokkat

Introduction

1These Applications allege discrimination with respect to accommodation because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The respondents requested in their Responses that the Applications be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code, because in their view the issues in these Applications have already been appropriately dealt with at the Landlord and Tenant Board ("LTB"). This Interim Decision addresses these requests to dismiss the Applications.

3The respondents take the position that the issues in these Applications have been appropriately dealt with at the LTB. They filed a copy of an LTB Order, dated December 23, 2016 in which the respondent, Abraham Kokkat, was ordered to make certain repairs to the applicant's rental unit and to pay the applicant a rent abatement. The respondent, Abraham Kokkat, stated in his Response that he is the applicant's landlord, not Irene Lal.

4The respondents also filed an LTB Order, dated February 1, 2017, in which the applicant was ordered to move out of the rental unit by February 28, 2017 if arrears of rent were not paid by that date.

5The respondent, Abraham Kokkat, advised that the applicant has moved out of the apartment.

6The applicant's Reply stated only that she felt these Applications should continue, but did not give reasons why.

7Both parties provided brief submissions in response to the Tribunal's Case Assessment Direction, dated May 10, 2017 requesting further information with respect to the status of the LTB proceedings. The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide any submissions if they wished to with respect to consolidation by no later than May 23, 2017, but neither party did so.

CONSOLIDATION

8The Tribunal consolidates these two Applications because of the overlap between the legal and factual issues in them.

9Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure states that, in order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may consolidate or hear applications together.

10In Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 25, the Tribunal adopted the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Lattey v. Canadian Pacific Railway, 2002 CanLII 45928, which set out the factors that should be considered in deciding whether to consolidate or hear proceedings together:

a. The public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings, including considerations of expense, delay, the convenience of the witnesses, reducing the need for the repetition of evidence, and the risk of inconsistent results;

b. The potential prejudice to the respondents that could result from a single hearing, including the lengthening of the hearing for each respondent as issues unique to the other respondent are dealt with, and the potential for confusion that may result from the introduction of evidence that may not relate to the allegations specifically involving one respondent or the other; and

c. Whether there are common issues of fact or law.

45.1 DISMISSAL

11It does not appear that the applicant's claims with respect to how the respondents allegedly treated her disability and her request to use a scooter in the unit were addressed by the LTB. As such, these Applications are not dismissed at this preliminary stage.

DIRECTIONS

12These Applications will be set for a one day hearing in London.