Ontario (Human Rights Comm.) v. Hassanali
1986-06-11
Ontario Board of Inquiry
Ontario Human Rights Commission Complainant
v.
Count S. Hassanali
and
Kennedy Towers Respondents
Place: Toronto, Ontario
Before: Bruce Dunlop
Appearances by:
Jan Dolezel, Counsel for the Ontario Human Rights Commission
Count S. Hassanali, on his own behalf and on behalf of Kennedy Towers
HOUSING ACCOMODATION — marital status as basis for tenancy condition — FAMILY STATUS — co-signer required on tenancy leases for single person
Summary: The Board of Inquiry dismisses a complaint made by the Ontario Human Rights Commission in which it alleged that Count S. Hassanali and Kennedy Towers required single persons seeking tenancy to provide co-signers on their leases.
The Board of Inquiry accepts the evidence of Count S. Hassanali that the policy of Kennedy Towers is to require co-signers when there is a doubt regarding the financial responsibility of the prospective tenant, and that the requirement is not linked to marital status.
On this basis, the complaint is dismissed.
1The Ontario Human Rights Commission laid a complaint against Kennedy Towers, an apartment block on Kennedy Road in Scarborough and Count S. Hassanali its owner. The complaint, pursuant to s. 31(2) of the Human Rights Code, 1981 was "on behalf of single persons whose right to equal treatment with respect to accommodation is believed to have been infringed because of marital status, in contravention of ss. 2(1), 8 and 10 of the Human Rights Code." The Commission's complaint was based on an investigation prompted by a Miss Lorraine Walter who had alleged that Kennedy Towers initially refused to rent an apartment to her on the grounds that she was single and subsequently tried to require her to have someone co-sign the lease, presumably as a guarantor. Ultimately, Miss Walter became a tenant of Kennedy Towers as a single person and without a co-signer. But clearly, refusing to rent to single persons or requiring single persons alone to have co-signers of their leases would constitute an infringement of the Code.
2A board of inquiry was appointed to hear the complaint and a hearing was conducted on 11 April, 1986 in courtroom 43, 145 Queen St. W., Toronto. Evidence was given by Neil Edwards, a human rights officer with the Ministry of Labour and by Count Hassanali, who represented himself and Kennedy Towers at the hearing. The conclusion the Board has reached is that the complaint should be dismissed.
3The evidence of Mr. Edwards was based on statements made to representatives of the Commission by Miss Walter, a Mrs. George who worked for Count Hassanali, a Carol Klutz who also worked for Count Hassanali and Count Hassanali himself. It seemed clear that Miss Walter had initially been asked to have a co-signer of her lease, but that the condition was subsequently dropped. What was not clear to the Board was that this was a policy of Count Hassanali which applied to all single people and only to single people. In his evidence under oath Count Hassanali asserted that co-signers were only required when the management of Kennedy Towers had doubts about the financial responsibility of the proposed tenant. He asserted that this requirement could be applied to a married person as well as to a single one and he produced a list of twenty-three names of persons whom he said were single, who occupied apartments in Kennedy Towers and with the exception of perhaps one or two, had not been required to obtain co-signers.
4The Board asked Count Hassanali to explain a paragraph in a letter he had written to the Ministry on 20 March, 1984 during the investigation of Miss Walter's complaint. This paragraph reads:
We do not have discrimination in our building for single persons renting an apartment. Only we check with credibility of renter in order to obtain our rent on the first of every month without hassle. Therefore we need co-signer.
One possible interpretation of the paragraph is that all single persons must have a co-signer but Count Hassanali assured the Board that this was so only if they were not considered financially reliable. It thus seems possible that those who believed Count Hassanali to be engaged in systematic discrimination against single persons were labouring under a misunderstanding due to a communications problem.
5While it is perfectly proper for the Board to admit hearsay evidence such as that of Miss Walter and Mrs. George it can also be seen that had either of them appeared as witnesses they could usefully have been examined, in the case of Miss Walter as to the basis of her understanding that she was the victim of discrimination and in the case of Mrs. George, as to the precise meaning of any statements she may have made that seemed to imply a discriminatory policy. Given the categorical denial by Count Hassanali on oath of a discriminatory policy and given the possibility that there had been a misunderstanding at an earlier stage as to what his policy was, the Board's view is that no infraction has been established.
6In the absence of a violation of the Code the Board is not in a position to impose any requirement on Count Hassanali that he write a letter of assurance to the Commission or that he post a "Code Card" in the lobby of his building.