Lewis v. Niagara Regional Housing, 2009 HRTO 1766

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Lewis

Applicant

-and-

Niagara Regional Housing, Tim Zavitz, Walley Ramey and Ontario March of Dimes

Respondents

interim decision

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: October 23, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1766

Indexed as: Lewis v. Niagara Regional Housing

APPEARANCES BY

David Lewis, Applicant ) On his own behalf

Niagara Regional Housing, Tim Zavitz, ) and Walley Ramey, Respondents ) Michael Kyne, Counsel

Ontario March of Dimes, Respondent ) Christina Hall, Counsel

1This is an Application to the Tribunal filed on May 14, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant has alleged that the respondents discriminated against him in the provision of goods, services and facilities on the basis of his disability and that he has been subjected to reprisal or the threat of reprisal.

2The respondent Ontario March of Dimes filed a Request for Order During Proceeding asking that the matter be dismissed against it for lack of jurisdiction. They argue that there is no allegation by the applicant that the March of Dimes provides goods, services or facilities to the applicant or that they have reprised against him. The applicant filed a Form 11 in response to the Request for Order opposing the request. The remaining respondents did not file a Form 11.

3A conference call was scheduled by the Tribunal and I heard submissions from all the parties. The Application is dismissed as against the Ontario March of Dimes for the reasons that follow.

4Section 34(1) of the Code provides that a person who believes that any of his or her rights under Part I of the Code have been infringed may apply to the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear and determine human rights applications is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific social relationships such as housing, employment and the provision of services, goods or facilities.

5The Application alleges that the applicant was discriminated against on the basis of disability in receipt of goods, services or facilities and that he suffered reprisal or the threat of reprisal.

6Sections 1 and 8 of the Code provide as follows:

1. Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability.

2. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.

7The Ontario March of Dimes argues that the applicant is not in a service, contractual, employment or tenancy relationship with their organization and that simply making a claim of unfair treatment is insufficient to bring the portions of the Application relating to them within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

8Niagara Regional Housing and the two personal respondents concur with the submissions made by the Ontario March of Dimes.

9The applicant’s argument is that the Ontario March of Dimes and his landlord, Niagara Regional Housing, are in a partnership arrangement and that the relationship between the two organizations involves more than an ordinary tenancy arrangement. He acknowledges that he does not receive support services from the Ontario March of Dimes, that he is not in a contractual relationship with them, they are not his landlord and that he is not in an employment relationship with them. He argues, however, that he has a “relationship” with the Ontario March of Dimes because they made a complaint about him to Niagara Regional Housing which started a process that led to his inability to equitably access facilities and services provided to him by Niagara Regional Housing.

10Having reviewed the material before me and having considered the submissions of the parties, I find that the allegations made by the applicant in respect of the respondent Ontario March of Dimes do not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. The Tribunal does not have a general power to deal with claims of unfair treatment that do not have a basis in one of the social areas outlined in the Code. The applicant is not in receipt of goods, services or facilities from the Ontario March of Dimes. Nor is he in an employment, contractual or landlord/tenant relationship with it. The simple act of lodging a complaint cannot be considered harassment by a fellow occupant contrary to s. 2(2) of the Code, nor has that been alleged to be the case.

11Accordingly, the Application is dismissed against the Ontario March of Dimes. The hearing into the Application against the remaining respondents will commence as scheduled.