HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Shehbaz Saleem Applicant
- and-
Mohammed Naseerudin Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta
Indexed as: Saleem v. Naseerudin
APPEARANCES BY
Shehbaz Saleem, Applicant ) On His Own Behalf
Mohammed Naseerudin, Respondent ) Gerald Grupp, Agent
INTRODUCTION
1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on July 21, 2008, alleging that he suffered discrimination and reprisal in the areas of housing and employment on the grounds of race, citizenship and disability. At the hearing into this matter, he sought to add creed as an additional ground of discrimination because his Application had included allegations concerning his creed.
2The respondent is a former landlord from whom the applicant rented residential premises for just under two months. The applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against him when he gave him a notice to terminate his tenancy shortly after renting premises to him. He also alleges that the respondent colluded with another former landlord to sabotage his case at the Landlord and Tenant Board against that landlord, harm his employment prospects and affect his health. The applicant believes he was treated this way because he is Asian, a citizen of Pakistan and a Muslim. He denies having a disability and indicates that the disability was “made up” by the respondent.
3The hearing into this matter was held on September 3, 2009. I heard evidence from the applicant and the respondent.
EVIDENCE
4The parties agree that the applicant responded to an advertisement placed by the respondent offering to rent out a self contained unit in the basement of a house in which the respondent, his wife and their six children lived and continue to reside.
5There is also broad agreement between the parties that the applicant first viewed the property on May 26th, that he provided two cheques for first and last month’s rent to the respondent on that date but that he did not sign a rental application or lease agreement on that date. They agree that the respondent cashed the cheques provided and that the applicant physically occupied the rental unit from June 14, 2008 to July 13, 2008.
6Finally, the parties agree that as a result of a proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board, which was eventually withdrawn, all money paid other than money intended as rent payment for the month referred to in paragraph 5 (above) was returned to the applicant by the respondent.
7The dispute between the parties concerns the treatment of the applicant during the month he was a tenant of the respondent and the reason for the ending of the tenancy.
8The applicant gave evidence that he believed that the respondent communicated with his previous landlords and colluded with them to harm him. Specifically, he suggests that the respondent harmed him by diverting his mail, using microwave devices to harm him and offering to help him look for a job when he had not asked for assistance. The applicant also used an internet connection provided and paid for by the respondent as part of the tenancy agreement and the internet connection was not functioning for a period of time during the tenancy, an event that the applicant finds suspicious. The applicant also believes that he was unable to get certain jobs as a result of the respondent communicating with the prospective employers. He testified that the respondent once called him a terrorist. Finally, the applicant objects to the respondent giving him a written notice for termination of his tenancy followed by an application to end his tenancy.
9The applicant argued that the reason the respondent did the things described above is that the applicant is Asian, Muslim and from Pakistan. Although his application lists disability as a ground, his evidence is that he does not have a disability.
10The respondent’s evidence is that he is a newcomer to Canada and, as such, felt an affinity to the applicant and entered into a tenancy agreement with him. He testified that he is also Asian, his country of origin being India, and, like the applicant, is a Muslim.
11He denies diverting the applicant’s mail but indicates that his children did, on one occasion, open a letter addressed to the applicant inadvertently, which letter was then given to him. He also denies using microwave or other technologies to harm the applicant, tampering with the internet connection that is also used by his own household or calling him a terrorist. He denies colluding with any of the applicant’s previous landlords in any way or communicating with any of the respondent’s prospective employers. He does admit to offering to help the applicant find a job and says that once his offer was declined, he did not raise the issue with the applicant again.
12The respondent testified that he and wife decided to rent the basement unit in order to increase their family income. Once rented, they discovered that the family of eight was too crowded in the