Kostanowicz v. Zarubin
1994-03-07
Ontario Board of Inquiry
Donna Kostanowicz Complainant
v.
Branislaw Zarubin Respondent
Date of Decision: March 7, 1994
Before: Ontario Board of Inquiry, Lorne Slotnick
Comm. Decision No.: 593
Appearances by: Grace Permaul, Counsel for the Complainant Catherine Bickley, Counsel for the Commission Frank Gardner, Counsel for the Respondent
SOURCE OF INCOME — HOUSING ACCOMMODATION — rental accommodation denied to recipient of social assistance benefits — DAMAGES — injury to dignity and self-respect — determining quantum by considering previous awards — EVIDENCE — credibility of witness
Summary: The Board of Inquiry finds that Donna Kostanowicz was discriminated against because she was in receipt of public assistance when she was refused tenancy in an apartment building owned by Branislaw Zarubin.
Ms. Kostanowicz is a single mother and her son was fifteen months old in April 1991 when she was looking for an apartment. The Board of Inquiry accepts Ms. Kostanowicz's evidence that, after seeing an ad soliciting new tenants, she went to an apartment building in Etobicoke and spoke to Paul Plamenco. She filled out an application form, indicating that she was receiving mothers' allowance and going to school. Ms. Kostanowicz phoned a week later and was told by Mr. Plamenco that her application for an apartment was not successful. She phoned Mr. Zarubin and asked him why she was refused and whether it was because she was on mothers' allowance. She testified that Mr. Zarubin responded, "Mothers' allowance; that's why" and also that he indicated he had had trouble with two other women who were on mothers' allowance. At the time Ms. Kostanowicz was refused, Mr. Zarubin was still advertising that apartments were available.
Mr. Zarubin denies that Ms. Kostanowicz was denied tenancy because she was receiving social assistance. Rather he submits that she was refused because she did not give a start date for occupancy on her application form.
However, the Board of Inquiry accepts Ms. Kostanowicz's evidence, finding it consistent and believable. It concludes that Ms. Kostanowicz was refused tenancy because she was receiving social assistance.
With regard to remedy, the Board of Inquiry disagrees with the adjudicator in Willis v. David Anthony Phillips Properties who found that awards for damages for hurt feelings will normally be smaller in cases where the ground of discrimination is "receipt of public assistance" because being in receipt of public assistance "does not go to the core of a person's being" in the same way as race, creed or sex. The Board of Inquiry finds that the Code makes no distinction among the various grounds of discrimination.
The Board of Inquiry awards Ms. Kostanowicz $2,000 as compensation for hurt feelings. It also requires the respondent to prepare a written policy to be given to any person who shows apartments or processes applications at any of his buildings in Ontario, and this policy shall state that prospective tenants will not be discriminated against because they are in receipt of public assistance.
Cases Cited
Willis v. David Anthony Phillips Properties (1987), 1987 CanLII 8546 (ON HRT), 8 C.H.R.R. D/3847 (Ont. Bd.Inq.): 48, 53
Legislation Cited
Ontario
Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19
s. 2: 42
s. 2(1): 1
s. 41(1)(a): 57
s. 41(1)(b): 56
1Donna Kostanowicz, who in 1991 was a single mother receiving welfare, alleges in this complaint that she was discriminated against by a landlord, Branislaw Zarubin, when she was looking for an apartment. Ms. Kostanowicz says she was treated unequally because she was receiving welfare, contrary to s. 2(1) of the Human Rights Code [R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19], which provides that
2(1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of ... the receipt of public assistance.
2At the start of the hearing, counsel for the Commission asked me to add Investors Choice Real Estate Ltd. as a respondent. I agreed to do so, as it appeared that this corporation managed the building that is the subject of the complaint. By the end of the hearing, however, there was no clear evidence linking Investors Choice to the building. The complaint against Investors Choice is dismissed.
3Ms. Kostanowicz and Mr. Zarubin have sharply differing versions