MacAdam v. Meadows
1981-06-25
Ontario Board of Inquiry
ONTARIO
CHRR Doc. 82-025
Marion MacAdam Complainant
v.
Mr. and Mrs. H.M. Meadows Respondents
Place: Kenora, Ontario
Before: Ontario Board of Inquiry, Frederick H. Zemans
Appearances by: Michael Bader, Counsel for the Ontario Human Rights Commission David B. Roy, Counsel for Mr. and Mrs. H.M. Meadows
RACE, COLOUR AND PLACE OF ORIGIN — rental accommodation denied — ABORIGINAL PEOPLES — housing accommodation denied — HOUSING ACCOMMODATION — sublet denied on basis of race — rental accommodation denied on the basis of race — EVIDENCE — character evidence
Summary: The Board of Inquiry dismisses a complaint filed by Marion MacAdam which alleged that Mr. and Mrs. Meadows discriminated on the basis of race when they refused to allow her to sublet the trailer she rented from them because of the native ancestry of the prospective sub-tenant.
The Board finds that the Ontario Human Rights Commission failed to prove that discrimination occurred. In making this ruling, the Board cites the evidence that Mr. and Mrs. Meadows were not happy about the trailer being sublet, that they had rejected several applicants who were not of native ancestry, and that Marion MacAdam's preferred sub-tenant could not meet certain rules established by Mr. and Mrs. Meadows.
1Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appointment of a Board of Inquiry herein pursuant to the Ontario Human Rights Code was made by the Minister of Labour prior to the completion of the investigation by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Counsel for the respondent filed as Exhibit 1 a copy of the Notice of Appointment dated February 4, 1980, and as Exhibit 2 a letter dated April 23, 1980 from Victor Marcuz, supervisor of the Northern Region of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, to the solicitors for the respondents, Messrs. Swancar, Compton, Shewchuk and Roy, stating that the issues raised in this complaint had been investigated by the staff of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and that the investigation had been completed on February 12, 1980. Counsel argued that s. 14(a)(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code had been contravened:
14(a)(1) Where it appears to the Commission that a complaint will not be settled, the Commission shall make a recommendation to the Minister as to whether or not a Board of Inquiry should be appointed, and the Minister may, in his discretion, appoint a Board of Inquiry consisting of one or more persons to hear and decide the complaint.
Counsel's contention was that Exhibit 2 indicated that the investigation herein had not been completed until February 12, 1980 while the Minister had appointed a Board of Inquiry on February 4, 1980, in contravention to s. 14(a)(1) and specifically that no attempt had been made to settle the complaint prior to the appointment of a Board of Inquiry. Counsel for the respondent acknowledged that he had represented the respondents in settlement negotiations during the period of time subsequent to February, 1980. I reserved on this preliminary objection pending confirmation from counsel for the Ontario Human Rights Commission as to the actual date the Minister made the appointment, and heard the evidence on June 25, 1981.
2On August 11, 1981 counsel for the Ontario Human Rights Commission wrote to me with a copy to counsel for the respondents that the appointment by the Minister of Labour had been made on February 4, 1981, not 1980. Counsel for the Ontario Human Rights Commission informed me that on December 2 and 3, 1980, the Ontario Human Rights Commission met to deliberate this and other matters. At that time a decision was made to recommend to the Minister of Labour that a Board of Inquiry be appointed. On December 11, 1980, the Ontario Human Rights Commission wrote to the Minister of Labour requesting the appointment of a Board of Inquiry, which request was approved by the Minister of Labour on December 17, 1980. On February 4, 1981 the Minister of Labour appointed Professor Frederick H. Zemans as a Board of Inquiry pursuant to the provisions of s. 14(a)(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code. I therefore dismiss the preliminary objection of counsel for the respondents with respect to the discrepancy in the Notice of Appointment, as it is my decision that the appointment of a Board of Inquiry was made by the Minister of Labour on February 4, 1981 and that the appointment was typed incorrectly.
3Counsel for the respondents further objected to the fact that Notice of Hearing herein had not been given, as required by the Ontario Human Rights Code, to Ms. Corinne Hogarth. Section 14(b)(I)(c) states that "any persons named in the complaint and alleged to have been dealt with in a manner contrary to the provisions of the Act" should receive a Notice of the hearing. Ms. Corinne Hogarth is named in the complaint of discrimination as a person who was allegedly dealt with in a manner contrary to the provisions of the Act, and should have received a Notice of the Hearing and been given an opportunity to attend the Board of Inquiry. Counsel for the respondents withdrew this objection when he learned that Ms. Hogarth was present to testify at the hearing.
Complaint
4The complainant, Ms. Marion MacAdam, alleges that she was discriminated against by Mr. and Mrs. H.M. Meadows contrary to s. 3(1)(b) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1970, c. 318, as amended. Section 3(1)(b) provides that:
3(1) No person, directly or indirectly, alone or with another, by himself or by the interposition of another, shall,
(b) Discriminate against any person or class of persons with respect to any term or condition of occupancy of any commercial unit or any housing accommodation.
Because of race ... colour ... ancestry ... of such person or class of persons or of any other person or class of persons.
5The complaint (Exhibit 1) alleges that the respondents, Mr. and Mrs. H.M. Meadows, refused to allow Ms. Marion MacAdam to sublet her trailer to Mr. S. Brown and Ms. C. Hogarth because of the native ancestry of Ms. Hogarth. It was alleged that Ms. MacAdam sublet the trailer to the couple without the Meadows' approval and the sub-tenants were told to leave by Mr. and Mrs. Meadows after they had occupied the trailer.
Evidence
6The complainant in this hearing, Marion MacAdam, lived in Kenora from May, 1978 to September, 1980 where she was employed as the regional coordinator for Frontier College. Frontier College is an adult education facility which is devoted to developing literacy and communication skills of adults. In October, 1978 Ms. MacAdam was looking for accommodation when she saw an advertisement in a Kenora newspaper for a two bedroom trailer. She forwarded an application indicating her interest in the premises in which she stated her occupation and the fact that she had no children. She was contacted by Mrs. Doris Jean Meadows and invited to view a two bedroom trailer located on property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Meadows in Kenora.
7The Meadows have lived in Kenora since 1954. They operated a tourist camp for several years and eventually disposed of all their cabins except for two which they continued to rent during the summer months. Two mobile homes or trailers were moved onto the property adjacent to their home on Lake of the Woods and for the last number of years the Meadows have rented these trailers to the public. Ms. MacAdam decided to rent one of these two trailers. Mr. Meadows worked for a number of years on the trains and subsequently as a correctional officer at the Kenora jail for approximately six and a half years. He resigned his position as a correctional officer in 1971 when he was involved in a serious car accident that required him to undergo brain surgery and to be hospitalized four months. He has been unable to assume full time employment since the accident and subsequent brain tumour surgery in 1974.
8Mr. Meadows testified that since 1968 he and his wife have insisted that they would not rent to tenants with pets, children, or who were not married. Mr. Meadows stated that on one occasion they rented to a pregnant relative who was in desperate need of accommodation. She vacated the trailer shortly after she gave birth (Evidence pp. 139, 185).
9After viewing the trailer Ms. MacAdam entered into an oral tenancy to rent a two bedroom trailer from the Meadows for one year commencing in October, 1978 (Evidence page 20). During the winter of 1978/79 Ms. MacAdam had a cordial relationship with Mr. and Mrs. Meadows and believed that she got along reasonably well with them. She recalled one incident when the Meadows spoke to her after she had returned from a visit to Winnipeg. Ms. MacAdam had allowed a friend, Ms. Rosalind Copenace, and her three children to stay in the trailer during her absence. When she returned, Ms. MacAdam testified that Mr. Meadows asked her if she "had an Indian in there" (Evidence p. 21). Ms. MacAdam stated that she was aware that Mr. and Mrs. Meadows did not wish any children or pets living in their two rental trailers which were in the proximity of their home. She recognized that they were concerned about the inadequacy of the plumbing facilities as well as about parties, drinking and people coming onto the property while Ms. MacAdam was away. She agreed on cross-examination that Mr. and Mrs. Meadows were concerned about the fact that Ms. Copenace was staying in the trailer with her three children while Ms. MacAdam was away.
10In cross-examination Ms. MacAdam was asked:
Q. In fact, isn't it true that on several occasions you would have native people over at your premises while you were at Meadows?
A. Yes.
Q. It's true also, isn't it that Mrs. Meadows or Mr. Meadows would be aware that they were native people popping over and visiting with you and perhaps staying over there on occasion? That is true is it not?
A. Yes, they probably did.
Q. Did you ever have any problem in the past as far as them coming over, other than the two that you mentioned [Ms. Copenace and Ms. Hogarth], of them coming over and telling you that they did not want native people?
A. No, no other time. (Evidence p. 67)
11In the spring of 1979 Ms. MacAdam decided that she would like to spend the summer living at Hilly Lake near Kenora and wanted to sublet the Meadows' trailer. She spoke to Mr. and Mrs. Meadows who indicated that they were not happy with her subletting. Ms. MacAdam explained that it was her legal right to sublet but agreed that the Meadows should have the right to approve any tenant to whom Ms. MacAdam would sublet the trailer. She advertized in the spring of 1979 and received a number of responses. Ms. MacAdam rejected many applicants and sent several whom she approved to see the Meadows. All the prospective sub-tenants were rejected. None of the applicants rejected by the Meadows were of native ancestry (Evidence p. 51).
12By the middle of June, 1979 Ms. MacAdam was quite anxious to sublet her premises as soon as possible because she had committed herself to lease a property at Hilly Lake and did not wish to be responsible for payment of rent at two properties. The evidence is unclear as to how Ms. Corinne Hogarth was introduced to the property. Ms. Hogarth testified that she replied to Ms. MacAdam's ad. Ms. MacAdam indicated that she had met Ms. Hogarth through a mutual friend and knew that Ms. Hogarth was pregnant with her second child and was desperately looking for a place to live after the baby was born. Ms. Hogarth inspected the trailer and went to speak to the landlords. Ms. Hogarth testified that she spoke to Mr. Meadows in the office at his home. She stated that her boyfriend, Mr. Stewart Brown, was with her during this conversation. She confirmed Ms. MacAdam's evidence, that Mr. Meadows was upset that Ms. MacAdam was subletting the trailer and that he was anxious about the type of persons who would occupy the trailer (Evidence pp. 82, 83). Mr. Meadows gave Ms. Hogarth the impression that he was not interested in renting to her. Ms. Hogarth's evidence was very clear both in examination-in-chief and cross-examination that the question of her native ancestry was not a subject of discussion with either Mr. or Mrs. Meadows (Evidence pp. 83, 91 and 92). Ms. Hogarth testified that after her meeting with Mr. Meadows she received a telephone call from Ms. MacAdam. She told Ms. MacAdam that she had a feeling that Mr. Meadows was not happy about renting to her and her boyfriend, Stewart Brown. Ms. Hogarth was most anxious about finding a place to live as she was in the last weeks of her pregnancy, and in fact gave birth on June 21, 1979. She also had a daughter who was not living with her but with her father and Ms. Hogarth was anxious to locate accommodation for Mr. Brown and herself, as well as the new baby. She wanted to reside in the Meadows' trailer until she and Mr. Brown could afford something bigger. During the telephone conversation Ms. MacAdam indicated to Ms. Hogarth that Mr. Meadows was concerned about approving the sublet because she was part Indian. Ms. Hogarth was adopted as a child and was told by her adopting parents that her natural mother was Metis. She was distressed by her conversation with Ms. MacAdam because she had never been discriminated against on the basis of her Indian ancestry (Evidence pp. 85–88). Ms. Hogarth never occupied the premises, but Mr. Brown informed her that he had stayed in the trailer for one night while she was in the hospital. She understands that there was a confrontation between Mr. Meadows and Mr. Brown after which Mr. Brown did not return to the trailer. In cross-examination Ms. Hogarth stated that she and Mr. Brown were asked by Mr. Meadows if they were married and she had replied that they were not (Evidence p. 95).
13Curiously, the Meadows' version of who met with Ms. Hogarth was entirely different from Ms. Hogarth's evidence. However, their evidence on the substance of their conversation was essentially the same as Ms. Hogarth's. Considering that the hearing was held some two years after the events in question, the discrepancies are perhaps understandable. Mrs. Meadows testified that it was she and not her husband that had spoken with Ms. Hogarth. She stated that her husband was in Manitoba at the time and had not met or seen Ms. Hogarth until she testified at this Inquiry. Mrs. Meadows also stated that Ms. Hogarth had come alone, without Stewart Brown. She testified that she explained the criteria for renting the trailers to Ms. Hogarth and since she noticed that Ms. Hogarth was in the advanced stages of pregnancy she tried to discourage her from subletting the trailer since it had no laundry facilities. She agreed with Ms. Hogarth's evidence that no mention was made of Ms. Hogarth's ancestry (Evidence pp. 185–190).
14At this point it is important to note that several witnesses, including the complainant, agreed that Ms. Hogarth does not appear to be of Indian ancestry (Evidence p. 58). It is my conclusion that if ancestry was not a topic of conversation between Ms. Hogarth and Mr. or Mrs. Meadows that they would have had no way of knowing that she was of Indian ancestry.
15Ms. MacAdam believed that Ms. Hogarth's sub-tenancy was rejected because of her ancestry and sought the advice of a friend, Mr. Doug Keshen. Mr. Keshen is a lawyer and the Director of Economic Development for Grand Council Treaty Number Three, a native Indian organization in Kenora. Mr. Keshen testified that Ms. MacAdam had felt that Ms. Hogarth was being discriminated against and Ms. MacAdam felt that she was in a desperate situation because she was running out of prospective sub-tenants. Mr. Keshen said that she was very nervous and upset and he convinced her not to let the matter drop. He offered to go with her to discuss the situation with the Meadows. Mr. Keshen and Ms. MacAdam went to the Meadows' home on June 23, 1979. Mr. Keshen testified that it was either lunch time or dinner time. Mr. Meadows answered the door. They introduced themselves to Mr. Meadows and Mr. Keshen stated that, "I am employed at Treaty Three. I am a lawyer. However, I am coming in my capacity as a friend of Marion's" (Evidence p. 106). There are four different versions of what occurred next.
16Version one is recounted by Ms. MacAdam who testified that when she told Mr. Meadows that she wanted to sublet to Ms. Hogarth and Mr. Brown, Mr. Meadows asked her what Mr. Brown did for a living and he was "hot" because he knew that Mr. Brown was not a "very reputable character". Mr. Meadows then asked about Ms. Hogarth and said "Is she Indian?" Mr. Keshen then said, "Marion, you don't have to answer that question". Up to that point, Ms. MacAdam states, the conversation was quite civil, but then "it was just a fighting match". Ms. MacAdam testified that Mr. Meadows repeated three or four times the question about Ms. Hogarth's ancestry and then went on to say that he once had to sleep with a shotgun beside his bed. Ms. MacAdam recounts that she and Mr. Keshen refused to state Ms. Hogarth's ancestry and that eventually Mr. Meadows told them to get out (Evidence pp. 30–32). In cross-examination Ms. MacAdam stated that Mrs. Meadows, although initially she was not at the entrance way with her husband, would have heard the whole conversation. She said that Mr. Meadows said, "Oh, she is native, she's native because you would have said something if she wasn't native" and that he also mentioned the Anicinabi Park takeover during which the park next to the Meadows' home was taken over by armed Indians (Evidence pp. 65–66).
17Version two, according to Mr. Keshen, is that he told Mr. Meadows that Ms. MacAdam intended to sublet to a friend who was in hospital and that Ms. MacAdam would guarantee the rent. Mr. Keshen said at this point Mr. Meadows was quite pleasant. After some conversation he asked "what nationality is she?". Keshen said to Ms. MacAdam, "Don't answer that, it is irrelevant". Mr. Meadows then got very angry with Mr. Keshen although he was still pleasant to Ms. MacAdam. He said he had a right to know what nationality the sub-tenant was. Mr. Meadows' wife and son joined them and tried to calm Mr. Meadows down. He then said "She must be Indian", and "I know Indians better than anyone and I would never rent to an Indian ..." Mr. Keshen does not believe that Ms. Hogarth's name was used during the conversation. Mr. Keshen stated that he then said "You ruined my digestion." At that point he and Ms. MacAdam were ushered out the door by Mr. Meadows (Evidence pp. 106–113).
18The third version is that of Mr. Meadows who testified that he became tense when Mr. Keshen indicated that he was a lawyer for Treaty Three. After he asked the question "Is she Native?" he stated that he could not get a word in edgewise because Mr. Keshen went on a four to five minute tirade about discrimination and attitudes towards Native People. Mr. Meadows then opened the door and Mr. Keshen and Ms. MacAdam left. Keshen said "you have ruined a beautiful evening" (Evidence pp. 142–143). In cross-examination Mr. Meadows denied saying anything further about Indians during the argument. However he admitted that he was very excited and could have said things he has since forgotten. Mr. Meadows also said that he had slept with a shotgun during the park take-over but that he had not made any negative conclusions about natives as a result of that incident.
19The last version is that of Mrs. Meadows who testified that Mr. Keshen was quite upset when Mr. Meadows asked "Is she Indian?" He did not let Mr. Meadows answer him. Mr. Meadows then opened the door and told Ms. MacAdam to come back alone to discuss the situation. She stated, later in her evidence, that Mr. Meadows responded to Mr. Keshen by saying that he knew what natives were, that he understood them a tot better than Keshen did and that they had lived in the town for a long time (Evidence pp. 185–193). In cross-examination she denied that Mr. Meadows had said he would not rent to Indians or that "she must be Indian" (Evidence pp. 200–204).
20All the witnesses involved in this incident admit that they were upset during the conversation although they disagree as to who became upset first. It is clear that Mr. Meadows did ask "is she Indian" and that his question was not answered. It also appears that Ms. Hogarth's name was not specifically mentioned. Only Ms. MacAdam testified that they spoke specifically about subletting to Brown and Hogarth.
21I do not think that the initial question "is she Indian?" is evidence of Mr. Meadows' attitude towards Indians. It does not seem to me to be an unnatural question, bearing in mind the manner in which Mr. Keshen introduced himself to the Meadows. Mr. Keshen stated that Mr. Meadows was pleasant to Ms. MacAdam throughout the conversation but was upset only at Mr. Keshen. This implies that Mr. Meadows became angry at Keshen for intruding upon him and his family during a Sunday evening dinner, and refusing to allow Ms. MacAdam to answer a simple question rather than because Ms. MacAdam wanted to sublet to an Indian.
22In the same vein, I accept that Mr. Meadows said "She must be Indian", several times but only after Mr. Keshen attacked his alleged attitude towards native people. Although Mr. Meadows did appear to dwell on the issue of ancestry, I believe it is reasonable for an upset and excited man to repeat "She must be Indian" when his initial question is not answered and he is subjected to a heavy-handed speech by a lawyer who has appeared uninvited at his front door.
23The only statement of import attributed to Mr. Meadows was that he would never rent to natives. Mr. Meadows claimed he did not say this and, in fact, could not say anything because Mr. Keshen did not give him a chance. However Mrs. Meadows testified as follows:
A. Well, he kept questioning the fact of our understanding of what natives were.
Q. Who kept questioning?
A. Keshen, our attitude towards them.
Q. Did you respond to that at all?
A. No, I don't think I responded to that because I didn't think it was relevant to him.
Q. Did Mr. Meadows respond to that question?
A. Yes, he voiced his opinion.
Q. What was that? What did he say?
A. He knew what natives were and he worked with them, and he understood natives probably a lot better than he did, and we lived in this town long enough. (Evidence p. 193)
24His wife has testified that Mr. Meadows did allow himself to verbally duel with Mr. Keshen about their respective attitudes to native people. I cannot accept Mr. Meadows' evidence that he said nothing. I also accept Mr. Keshen and Ms. MacAdam's evidence that Mr. Meadows mentioned the Anicinabe Park incident and the fact that he "knew Indians" and would not rent to Indians. The latter statement is quite consistent with the evidence of Mrs. Meadows. I will return to the significance of Mr. Meadows' statement later in my decision.
25Ms. MacAdam moved out of the trailer very shortly after this incident. Despite the fact that she had not received the Meadows' consent to sublet she agreed to rent the trailer she occupied to Mr. Brown and Ms. Hogarth. Mr. Meadows testified that one or two nights after Ms. MacAdam moved out, on June 23rd or 24th, 1979, they came home to find the lights on in the trailer rented by Ms. MacAdam. Mr. Meadows went to the trailer to investigate and found a man inside who said he was subletting the trailer from Ms. MacAdam. Mr. Meadows told this man to come and speak to the Meadows in their home. He did so. At that time Mr. Meadows states that Mr. Brown told him that he would be living with Ms. Hogarth. He was told the Meadows' rules against renting to unmarried couples and couples with children. However, Mr. Meadows stated that when Mr. Brown told him that his father had known the Meadows since 1954, Mr. Meadows told him to return the next day and he and his wife could decide whether to rent the trailer to him (Evidence pp. 140–146).
26Mr. Meadows testified that the following day he had asked other people about Mr. Brown's reputation and had been told that he had been in trouble with the police and that he had a severe drug and alcohol problem.
27Mr. Meadows states that Mr. Brown came back the next evening and that he appeared to be in an intoxicated state. After Mr. Meadows told him he could not sublet the trailer he became very abusive. Mr. Meadows said to Brown that he would call the police unless Brown left. Brown walked out followed by Mr. Meadows. Mr. Meadows testified that there was a car full of people outside the house and that Mr. Brown got into the car. Before the car left Mr. Meadows heard one of its occupants ask "shall we smoke this place tonight?" (Evidence pp. 146–149).
28Mr. Meadows' evidence is partly corroborated by Ms. Barbara Mann who was staying with her mother in the other trailer at the time of this incident. She testified that she was sitting outside the trailer when she heard abusive language from the direction of the Meadows' home and then saw a young man coming out of the home. He got into the car containing some other people and said "shall we smoke him?" The car then left (Evidence pp. 165–168).
29Mr. Brown was not called as a witness by either party to this complaint and therefore I accept Mr. Meadows' uncontradicted and partly corroborated testimony on this incident. Mr. Brown never returned to the trailer and the Meadows have not seen him since. Ms. Hogarth has not stayed at the trailer at all.
30The next day Mr. Meadows stated that he telephoned Ms. MacAdam and told her to come to their home. After she arrived he told her what had happened and gave her a letter dated June 26, 1979 from Messrs. Swancar, Compton, Shewchuk and Roy giving Mr. Stewart Brown and "his companion" ten days notice to vacate the trailer (Exhibit 3).
31The evidence of Mr. Meadows and Ms. MacAdam is contradictory on the issue of how Ms. MacAdam paid her rent in advance for July and August, 1979. It is unnecessary for me to decide which version of the facts is more credible since it is clear that Ms. MacAdam did pay two months rent in advance by post-dated cheques and these cheques were never cashed by Mr. Meadows and were, in fact, returned to Ms. MacAdam marked "Cancelled".
32Mr. Meadows sent a notice of termination to Ms. MacAdam on June 29, 1979. It is handwritten and states:
Dear Miss MacAdam,
Please be advised that our rental agreement is to be terminated and the premises at Lot 104, Plan M56 in the Town of Kenora are to be vacated by August 31, 1979.
If you intend to dispute the termination notice I must be notified in writing by July 31, 1979.
Reasons for terminating the agreement are,
Subletting to a person without my consent when you knew that my consent was required.
Through your actions my wife and I were subjected to the most filthy abusive language possible. This, we do not have to take from any person, including tenants or sub-tenants.
Yours truly,
(H.M. Meadows)
(Exhibit 2)
33Soon after receiving this notice of termination Ms. MacAdam filed the complaint in question with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
34Several other witnesses were called by the respondents who testified as to Mr. Meadows' character and reputation in the community.
35Mary Petiguan, a native Indian, lives in Kenora and until April or May of 1981 was employed by the Meadows as a part time housecleaner. She stated that the Meadows were good to her (Evidence pp. 131–132).
36Mr. Lewis William Cross is the superintendent of the Kenora jail and has known the Meadows for 24 to 25 years. He stated that Mr. Meadows terminated his position as a Correctional Officer II in 1971 because of the serious accident mentioned previously. Mr. Cross stated that 60 to 65% of the prisoners at the jail are native and Mr. Meadows had direct contact with them. He stated that there were never any complaints about Mr. Meadows regarding his attitude towards Indians. However, Mr. Cross admitted that few complaints come to his attention. Mr. Cross did not know the Meadows socially and had little contact with them in the ten years since Mr. Meadows ceased to work at the jail (Evidence pp. 174–179).
37Mr. George Arthur Player testified that he worked closely with Mr. Meadows at the Kenora jail until 1971. Mr. Player stated that Mr. Meadows was never involved in any incidents of discrimination towards native Indian prisoners. He stated that the jail had a temporary absence programme that allowed inmates to work temporarily in the community. Mr. Meadows had taken inmates (including natives) from the jail to work for him temporarily (Evidence pp. 179–185).
38Finally, counsel for the respondent introduced a letter from the Reverend L.P. Hands of St. Alban's Cathedral in Kenora (Exhibit 4). Mr. Meadows testified that Rev. Hands was unable to attend the hearing and had therefore provided the letter. Rev. Hands writes that he has known the Meadows since he arrived in Kenora and in that time has heard nothing in conversation with the Meadows to lead him to believe that they were "prejudiced". From his knowledge of the Meadows, Rev. Hands believed that the allegations against them were unfounded.
39Although I have taken account of all the character evidence put forward by the respondents I attach very little weight to it. Both Mr. Cross and Mr. Player have not worked with Mr. Meadows for many years and both have had little, if any, social contact with the Meadows in several years.
40Ms. Petiguan's testimony was also of little value since she only worked for the Meadows two days a week and she did not appear to know them very well. Her testimony was very short and lacked detail.
41I attached little weight to the letter of Rev. Hands, because the Board had no means of assessing the credibility of the witness and counsel for the Commission had not been able to exercise his right to cross-examine the witness. Furthermore, the letter simply states an opinion which does not address the relevant incidents in dispute before this inquiry.
Decision and Order
42Section 3(1)(b) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, set out above, was considered by Professor Mary Eberts in the Ontario Human Rights Commission Board of Inquiry decision of Brigitte Jahn v. Montford Johnstone, September 16, 1977. Professor Eberts stated the following:
There is apparently no limitation in the section [s. 3(1)(b)] on the range of "any other persons" who can attract to a complainant punishable discrimination. The section is not limited to redressing discrimination against a tenant or would-be tenant because of the characteristics of his or her closest associates: spouses, lovers, children. It is framed so broadly that a tenant or would-be tenant is protected against discrimination arising from the landlord's attitude towards third parties completely unknown to the tenant, as for example where a landlord rejects a tenant because he or she is not the same race or nationality as all the other tenants presently in the building (Id. at 17).
and at p. 18:
The section under consideration seems designed to accomplish two objectives that are consistent with this interpretation. First of all is the basic objective of protecting tenants or would-be tenants against discrimination by landlords, an objective that has formed part of the policy of this province since enactment of The Fair Accommodation Practices Amendment Act, 1960–61, S.O. 1960–61, c. 28. s. 3(1 )(b) recognizes that there are other factors besides the characteristics of the tenant or would-be tenant which might result in discriminatory treatment and seeks to broaden the tenant's protection against discrimination for those causes. Secondly, the section aims at the punishment by private parties – in this case, landlords – of those who in their own lives adhere, without fanfare, to the ideals espoused in the Code. Tradespeople who deal even-handedly with customers, suppliers, and employees, of whatever race, religion, nationality or sex; and householders who extend the warmth of family ties or of hospitality to people of different origins should not be deterred from doing so by the intervention of those to whom they look for security of tenure.
43As I am entirely in agreement with Ms. Eberts, I hold that the only issue for this tribunal to consider is whether Ms. Marion MacAdam was discriminated against by Mr. and Mrs. Meadows with respect to the occupancy of the trailer because of the race or ancestry of Ms. Corinne Hogarth.
44After due consideration of all the evidence I am of the opinion that the Ontario Human Rights Commission has failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that Ms. MacAdam was discriminated against in contravention of s. 3(1)(b) of the Code.
45It is clear from the evidence that the Meadows were not at all happy with the fact that Ms. MacAdam wanted to sublet her trailer. In fact, prior to the rejection of Mr. Brown and Ms. Hogarth as sub-tenants by the Meadows, they and Ms. MacAdam had rejected several applicants, none of whom were native Indians.
46When Ms. Hogarth went to see the Meadows to discuss the possibility of subletting the trailer there is no doubt that her ancestry was never mentioned. At that time Ms. Hogarth was in the advanced states of pregnancy and one of the Meadows' clear rules for tenants was that no children were allowed because of lack of laundry facilities on the premises.
47That brings me to the argument between Mr. Meadows and Mr. Keshen from which I have been asked, by counsel for the Commission, to infer Mr. Meadows' discriminatory intention. As I stated before, I am of the opinion that under the circumstances Mr. Meadows could not be faulted for asking if the sub-tenant to whom Mr. Keshen was referring was a native Indian. Even if I could infer from the evidence that Mr. Meadows was prejudiced and would not have rented to a native Indian, that would only go to his state of mind. An intention to discriminate, alone, is not enough to hold a respondent liable under the Code. There must be an accompanying act of discrimination. Therefore, the Commission still has the onus of proving that Mr. Meadows did, in fact, refuse to sublet to Ms. Hogarth because of her native ancestry. In this regard I have found on the evidence that Ms. Hogarth's name was not specifically mentioned in the argument between Mr. Keshen and Mr. Meadows. I accept the Meadows' testimony that they did not know who Mr. Keshen and Ms. MacAdam were talking about. In their minds there was no connection between Ms. Hogarth and the native Indian applicant about whom Mr. Keshen was talking.
48After this incident, there is no further evidence of any actions or statements made by the Meadows from which discrimination could be inferred. Their reaction towards Mr. Brown was totally reasonable and clearly could not be said to be in any way discriminatory. Their eviction of Mr. Brown and his companion and their termination of Ms. MacAdam's lease was in clear reaction to:
Ms. MacAdam subletting to tenants without the Meadows' approval;
The verbal abuse and threats directed against them by Mr. Brown;
The fact that Mr. Brown and his companion were not married, which was against the Meadows' rules;
The fact that Ms. Hogarth was eight months pregnant and wished to keep the baby in the trailer, which also violated the Meadows' rules;
The fact that from the Meadows' point of view, Mr. Brown was not the type of person they would be comfortable renting to.
49The Commission need only show that discrimination was one of the reasons for termination of Ms. MacAdam's lease. It need not prove this was the only reason. I find that they have failed to show any act of discrimination by either Mr. and Mrs. Meadows directed against Ms. MacAdam because of the ancestry of Ms. Hogarth. The complaint is therefore dismissed.