5 total
The court upheld the termination of a housing subsidy due to unreported household changes.
Charlas MacKenzie, eligible for rent-geared-to-income assistance, had his subsidy terminated by Ottawa Community Housing Corporation and the City of Ottawa.
This was due to his failure to report a change in household composition (daughters removed due to bail conditions) and prolonged absence from his unit (required to live with surety).
The Divisional Court dismissed his application for judicial review, finding the respondents' decisions reasonable.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, finding the respondents' interpretation and application of the Housing Services Act, 2011 and its regulations regarding reporting changes and absence from the unit to be reasonable, particularly in the context of limited housing subsidies and long waitlists.
The court also found no error in the assessment of extenuating circumstances.
Tenant's appeal of LTB order allowing landlord to withdraw eviction application dismissed as moot.
The tenant appealed orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board.
The Board had initially ordered eviction for rent arrears, but upon review, allowed the landlord to withdraw its application after the tenant paid the arrears.
The tenant argued the landlord could not withdraw the application after the hearing started.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law as the Board had granted permission for the withdrawal, and noting the appeal was moot since there was no longer a live controversy between the parties.
Judicial review dismissed; revocation of rent-geared-to-income subsidy for unreported absence and household changes was reasonable.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision revoking his rent-geared-to-income (RGI) assistance.
The housing provider terminated the subsidy after discovering the applicant was subject to bail conditions requiring him to reside with a surety and prohibiting contact with his children, meaning he had been absent from the unit for over 60 days and failed to report a change in household composition.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the administrative decision was reasonable, properly interpreted the legislative scheme, and adequately considered the applicant's circumstances.
Human rights application partially dismissed at summary hearing; shelter discrimination claims allowed to proceed.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation and services on the basis of race, colour, disability, receipt of public assistance, and reprisal.
He alleged that the Social Housing Registry of Ottawa (SHRO) and Ottawa Community Housing Corporation (OCHC) gave priority to immigrants over Canadians and failed to accommodate his disability.
He also alleged discriminatory treatment and reprisal by staff at the Carling Family Shelter.
Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations against SHRO, OCHC, and an OCHC manager, finding no reasonable prospect of success as priority is given based on life-threatening illness or domestic violence, not race or immigration status.
The Tribunal allowed the allegations against the City of Ottawa and shelter staff to proceed, directing the applicant to file an amended application with further particulars.
Human rights application dismissed; tenant's allegations of sexual harassment and reprisal by housing staff not credible.
The applicant, a tenant in social housing, alleged that female staff members of the respondent housing corporation sexually harassed him, made sexual advances, and discriminated against him on multiple grounds.
He further alleged that the respondents engaged in reprisals, including issuing a trespass notice and incorrectly calculating his rent, after he rejected the advances and complained.
The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence not credible, noting he misinterpreted innocuous actions as sexual advances.
The Tribunal accepted the respondents' evidence that the rent calculation error was a mistake and the trespass notice was issued due to the applicant's disruptive behaviour.
The application was dismissed.
