Crawford v. 2176534 Ontario, 2009 HRTO 1028

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Frederick Crawford

Applicant

-and-

2176534 Ontario Ltd., Edzar Investments Ltd., Structural Group of Companies, Derek Humble, Joseph Perruccio, Landlord Solutions and Harry Fine

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: July 13, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1028

Indexed as: Crawford v. 2176534 Ontario

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. The respondent Harry Fine is a paralegal and Landlord Solutions is his registered business name. The Application alleges discrimination in housing and contracts on the basis of sexual orientation and receipt of public assistance.

THE ISSUES

2The Application named Harry Fine and Landlord Solutions as respondents, together with various others. The narrative did not make any reference to them. These respondents requested immediate administrative dismissal of the Application as against them, and stated that they had no involvement in any of the matters giving rise to the Application.

3In an Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 851, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions explaining why Harry Fine and Landlord Solutions should remain as respondents by June 29, 2009.

4The applicant made submissions by e-mail on June 17, 2009, that read as follows:

Hello,

I'm responding to a request for information from an Interim Decision dated June 15 2009. Harry Fine/Landlord Solutions are named because they discriminated against me based on my social assistance status. They were apprised of the particulars of each tenant at 580 Kingston Rd., by their clients, Derek Humble and Joseph Perruccio and they agreed to participate in discrimination and harassment. On their website, www.landlordsolutions.ca, they promote their expertise in the Human Rights Code and in evicting low income tenants in social housing and/or on social assistance or ODSP. It is evident that their service is overtly discriminatory and of questionable legality. On April 1 2009 they were served a copy of my Application, they chose not to contact me and pursued an eviction proceeding against the leaseholder of 580 Kingston Rd, Mark Hundevad, and his roomates, that truly had no merit, was used to harass and intimidate, and was duly mediated in Mr. Hundevad's favour. Mr Fine had ample time and opportunity to withdraw his services from Edzar et.al. and avoid participating in discrimination. Mr.Hundevad was seeking a money settlement and/or relocation; Edzar et. al. refused and so Mark agreed to a voiding of three month's arrears and abatement until October 31 2009. The total value of the settlement is $9450.00, as nine months rent; from September 2008, when the harassment began to May 28 2009 when the agreement was made. This amount is near the maximum possible award under the RTA cap of $10,000.00 They also agreed that neither Joseph Perruccio or Derek Humble would harass us again or enter the property. Mark was self represented because his income is above the eligibility level for Legal Aid. There were two hearings; the first was adjourned due the amount of evidence presented; also, because of the serious nature of the offenses, the adjudicator scheduled the next hearing to ensure that she herself heard the case. During the month between hearings, Harry Fine/Landlord Solutions continued to pressure Mark to give up his tenancy. Mark decided that he wanted to move because all the trouble he's had with the respondents and the potential for more violence from them if he doesn't leave. Attending as a witness at these hearings, I was exposed to both Derek Humble and Joseph Perruccio on two separate occasions for several hours, which I found extremely intimidating and stressfull. Harry Fine/Landlord Solutions asked Mr. Hundevad during mediation at the Landlord and Tenant Board " Why would you want these people as your landlord if they relocated you?", indicating he was well aware of their criminality. Mark replied " Then why do you work for them ?" These respondents are fully culpable and complicit. Harry Fine/Landlord Solutions should be held accountable and sanctioned, commensurate with their involvement. I'm providing a link to an article written by Mr. Fine detailing his views on human rights and the Code. http://www.landlordsolutions.ca/pdfs/Human_Rights_in_housing.pdf Harry Fine/Landlord Solutions are self described paralegal experts in the Code and yet they eagerly and willfully engaged in discrimination.

5As the applicant did not copy his e-mail correspondence to the respondents in accordance with the rules, the Tribunal did so.

6The Tribunal then received the following e-mail from Mr. Fine:

I am in receipt of Mr. Crawford’s letter below. Can you please have the Tribunal contact me with respect to availability dates for a hearing as I am booked in Court most every day.

I would not want to delay the proceedings by having to send a representative to speak to an adjournment.

Let me say that the Tribunal harassing citizens through this process that permits ramblings to serve as acceptable pleadings is part of the reason two of the 4 provincial Conservative leadership candidates favour abolishing the Tribunal. With a few key presses, the grounds for this claim have gone from sexual orientation to receipt of public assistance.

Whatever works I guess, as the perception of the general public is that anything goes for applicants at the HRT.

7In a subsequent e-mail, Mr. Fine advised the Tribunal as follows:

In response to your email of June 19th, I emailed the Tribunal on June 19th with respect to dates for a hearing. At that time I indicated that I wished to have input on the date as my hearing calendar is extremely full.

Mr. Crawford’s reply to me on that same date indicated this excerpt:

My case has been expedited and there is no adjournment available to you; if you don’t attend, a default judgement and award will be made in your absence.

Taking Mr. Crawford at his word, I was concerned that the matter had proceeded without notice to the parties. Could you please advise me as to the status of this file and contact me to set a date for the proceeding at your earliest convenience. (emphasis in original)

THE TRIBUNAL PROCESS

8For the assistance of the parties, I make some general comments about the Tribunal’s procedure and the steps that have taken place thus far in this Application. The Tribunal is a neutral adjudicative tribunal that resolves human rights applications filed pursuant to the Code. The Tribunal has no authority under the Code to refuse to accept an application filed in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the Tribunal Rules. Evidence is presented by the parties and Tribunal adjudicators do not obtain evidence, for example by examining web sites.

9The Tribunal resolves applications in a manner that is fair, just and expeditious, neutral and that respects the principles of procedural fairness. The Tribunal must, under s. 43(2) of the Code, give the parties the opportunity to make oral submissions in accordance with its rules before finally disposing of any Application that is within its jurisdiction and to give written reasons. The Tribunal’s proceedings are governed by rules, policies and practice directions that are set out on its web site. The web site contains guides for both applicants and respondents. Its decisions are public and available on the legal information website. The Tribunal does not proceed without notice or in the absence of any party who has chosen to participate. All parties are aware of all communication to and from the Tribunal.

10In the Interim Decision the applicant was not asked for “information” but rather to justify why Harry Fine and Landlord Solutions should remain as respondents to this Application. The Tribunal must now consider whether the new allegations provided in the e-mail of June 17, 2009 should be considered part of the Application and whether the Application may proceed as against Harry Fine and Landlord Solutions.

11The respondent appears to believe that the Tribunal has accepted an amendment to the Application. That is not the case. The Tribunal was merely providing the other parties with the applicant’s submissions, which should have been copied to them. A decision about whether Harry Fine and Landlord Solutions will remain as respondents must still be made. As a result, the Tribunal has not yet set a hearing date in this matter. Scheduling and requests for adjournment of scheduled hearing dates are dealt with pursuant to the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments, available on the Tribunal’s website.

DECISION

12As filed, the Application does not make allegations against the respondents Fine and Landlord Solutions and, in the absence of an amendment, they should be removed as respondents.

13The applicant will not be permitted to amend the Application, because the submissions in the letter of June 17, 2009 do not set out matters that are within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide. The allegations, as I understand them, relate to Mr. Fine’s representation of other respondents as a paralegal in legal proceedings at the Landlord and Tenant Board, which the applicant believes were unfounded, and his communication of his clients’ settlement position. The question is whether this can constitute discrimination in respect of accommodation. Section 2 (1) of the Code reads as follows:

Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance.

14In Cooper v. Pinkofskys, 2008 HRTO 390, the Tribunal addressed a situation where a witness for the Crown alleged that defence counsel had discriminated against him in respect of services contrary to the Code. The Tribunal stated as follows at para. 11:

Applying the above principles to this Application, unlike the situation in Hogan and Braithwaite, the cases cited by the applicant in support of his argument, defence counsel is neither providing services to a larger public of which the applicant is a member nor is there a direct service relationship between defence counsel and a Crown witness. Rather, the role of defence counsel at a criminal trial puts that counsel into an adversarial position with all prosecution witnesses called by the Crown in order to secure a conviction of that counsel’s client. Even applying a large, liberal and purposive interpretation of the Code, it cannot be said that defence counsel is providing services to or is in a service relationship with an adverse witness, given the duty of that counsel to fully and fearlessly advance the interests of his client. In no way are the “services” provided by the defence counsel of benefit or of assistance to the prosecution witness.

15In my view, these principles also apply in this case and result in a finding that the allegations of the applicant are not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Like lawyers, paralegals are obliged to act in the interests of and on instructions of their clients (subject, of course, to the prohibition on knowingly assisting in or encouraging dishonesty, fraud, crime, or illegal conduct). I find that a paralegal’s decision to represent a landlord in eviction proceedings at the Landlord and Tenant Board and discussion of settlement of the eviction proceedings does not fall under s. 2 of the Code. The paralegal is representing a party adverse in interest to the tenant and is not providing or offering accommodation.

16It would not be appropriate to allow an amendment that falls outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and there are no allegations against Harry Fine or Landlord Solutions in the Application as filed. The Application is accordingly, dismissed as against Harry Fine and Landlord Solutions. In the previous Interim Decision, these respondents were directed to make submissions in support of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award costs if they still sought them. They did not do so. The request for costs is dismissed.

17I make one final observation. Mr. Fine, in the initial Response, suggested that he had no involvement in these matters. It now appears that he does not dispute that he in fact represented the other respondents in the matters that are at issue in the Application. Had he outlined this in his Response, it would have allowed the Tribunal to address the substantive issues from the outset.

18I am not seized.