Joseph v. Cooperative d’habitation LaFontaine Inc., 2017 HRTO 1280

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ingrid Joseph

Applicant

-and-

Cooperative d’habitation LaFontaine Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: September 28, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1280

Indexed as: Joseph v. Cooperative d’habitation LaFontaine Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ingrid Joseph, Applicant

Ambika Dewan, Representative

1This Application alleges discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant filed a Request for Interim Remedy (“Request”) asking that the Tribunal halt the applicant’s eviction, order that the respondent return her rent deposit to her, and order that no further money be withdrawn for rent. It is not clear whether the applicant delivered a copy of her Request to the respondent as required under the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

finding

3The Request must be denied.

4The granting of an interim remedy is an extraordinary step. It involves requiring the respondent to take certain actions prior to a hearing on the merits of the Application and before any violation of the Code has been proven.

5The conditions for awarding an interim remedy are set out as follows in Tribunal Rule 23.2:

The Tribunal may grant an interim remedy where it is satisfied that:

a) the Application appears to have merit;

b) the balance of harm or convenience favours granting the interim remedy requested; and,

c) it is just and appropriate in the circumstances to do so.

6Considering the requirements of Rule 23.2, the Request cannot be granted for a number of reasons. First, it is not clear whether the Application has a reasonable prospect of success in terms of establishing a violation of the Code. In the Application the applicant alleges harassment in her dealings with the respondent; however, it is not clear whether there is a reasonable prospect of the applicant linking the alleged harassment to the grounds of discrimination listed in her Application.

7Second, it is not clear that it would be appropriate for the Tribunal to intervene in an eviction process that would have to be carried out through the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”). It is unclear whether the respondent has engaged the eviction process it would have to pursue at the LTB since the applicant did not reply to the question on the Application Form asking whether there exist any parallel proceedings in this case. It is critical for the applicant to be aware that, in order for the respondent to obtain a legally enforceable order evicting her, it will be required to obtain such order from the LTB. The issues the applicant raises in her Application are matters she can then raise at the LTB to defend against any eviction notice. If the LTB has made an eviction order, the proper course is for the applicant to appeal that order. In the circumstances, it is not clear to me that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant the interim remedy that is being sought. See DeMattos v. Duncan Mills Labourer’ Local 183 Co-operative Homes Inc., 2016 HRTO 472, where the Tribunal reached the same conclusion.

order

8I have a great deal of sympathy for the applicant’s circumstances but for the reasons set out above I must find that it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to grant the interim remedy the applicant is seeking.

9I am not seized of this case