Warren v. Kingston & Frontenac Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 2191

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shelly Warren

Applicant

-and-

Kingston & Frontenac Housing Corporation

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: December 17, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2191

Indexed as: Warren v. Kingston & Frontenac Housing Corporation

1This Application was made December 7, 2008 under Section 53(3) of Part VI of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2A Case Resolution Conference (“hearing”) was held on December 7, 2009. At my suggestion, the parties agreed to adopt their statements of facts as evidence and apart from expanding where necessary, proceed to cross examination.

3The applicant alleges that she was discriminated against in the provision of housing on the basis of family status. She became a tenant in a one bedroom apartment in subsidized housing with the respondent in April 2006. She was given priority status as a victim of violence.

4The applicant completed the application for an internal transfer to a larger unit on August 13, 2007 on the basis that she was expecting a baby in January 2008 and needed a two bedroom unit to accommodate her family. She also mentioned the father of the baby would be living with her.

5On August 17, 2008, the applicant made a “Request to add a household member” including the father of the baby and his daughter, which was rejected because four people in the one bedroom apartment was not permitted. The involvement of the father subsequently became irrelevant, as the applicant testified that she did not intend to actually live with the father or his daughter.

6On October 17, 2009, the applicant completed a Tenant Transfer Request as a single tenant indicating that three persons would be residing in the new apartment (father of the child and the child to be born).

7On October 30, 2007, the applicant was advised that her transfer request was approved and every 10^th vacancy will be filled from the Internal Transfer List. She was advised she must also apply for housing through the Social Housing Registry. She was advised that she could ask for a review of the Decision. She did not do so at that time.

8The applicant states that she was told by Emily Harris, an Applicant Tenant Services Co-ordinator, to “set up her crib in the living room” and that she would wait up to five years for a transfer. She stated that the applicant was lucky as some people had no homes at all. The applicant interpreted this comment to mean that Ms. Harris believed the applicant did not deserve to have adequate space because she lives in subsidized housing and/or is on welfare.

9Ms. Harris denies making such insinuations. Although Ms. Harris could not specifically recall the conversation, she was clear that any response she made would have been empathetic. The respondent agreed that in some of the locations requested by the applicant, the wait could be up to five years.

10I do not accept that Ms. Harris made any comment intended to denigrate the applicant’s circumstances and I find no discrimination occurred arising from this conversation.

11The applicant gave birth to a baby boy in January 2008, while residing in the one bedroom apartment.

12On April 14, 2008, the applicant’s representative wrote to the respondent seeking an internal review of the October 30, 2007 decision placing her on the Internal Transfer list in the regular category. At this rate, the applicant understood that she would be waiting years for a transfer to a larger unit. She asked that her transfer be expedited to accommodate her family status.

13On May 5, 2008, the respondent responded explaining that there is a waiting list for qualified applicants to get into social housing. The respondent must balance transfer requests from existing tenants against the priority given to victims of violence, the homeless, the over housed and those in need of a transfer for urgent medical conditions.

14The respondent decided to expedite the transfer in light of the human rights complaint but was subsequently criticized by Service Management on the basis that the applicant did not in fact meet the criteria for priority transfer.

15In late May 2008, the applicant was notified that she would be transferred to a two bedroom apartment. In June 2008 she moved in.

16In 2007, the respondent did not have a priority for under housed tenants. An “under housed tenant” was and is defined, in part, as living in a unit which is smaller than the smallest unit recommended local occupancy standards. In 2007, the smallest unit recommended for a single person, a single person with a child under 18 and a couple with a child under 18 was a one bedroom apartment with specified square footage.

17The parties agreed that 35 units became available in the applicant’s chosen locations between September 1, 2007 and June 30, 2008 that were offered to other people, either higher on the priority list or who had put their names on the Internal Transfer list earlier than the applicant.

18The respondent noted that the applicant’s self selection out of some of the available locations meant that she was not considered for another 40 units which became available during the same time frame. The respondent also notes that the applicant’s failure to apply for a two bedroom unit through the Social Housing Registry in order to be placed on the Centralized Waiting List throughout the Kingston area (and not just the units over which the respondent had control) also contributed to the longer wait time.

Decision

19Was the respondent’s policy in 2007 not to expedite requests for transfer by single pregnant women or single women with a child under one from a one bedroom to a two bedroom apartment a form of discrimination on the basis of family status?

20In my view, it was not. According to the City’s occupancy standards the smallest unit appropriate for a singe person, a single parent with one child or a couple with one child was a one bedroom apartment with certain square footage. There is no dispute that the applicant was housed in a one bedroom of the required square footage from April 2006 until her transfer to a two bedroom apartment in June 2008.

21The fact that the applicant found the one bedroom too small to comfortably house herself and her child, that she felt crowded and unable to host visitors is not indicative of discrimination. She was provided with a housing unit size that was deemed appropriate for the size of her family by the City’s occupancy standards. Based on the evidence presented to me, I find that there is nothing discriminatory in setting occupancy standards based on the number of persons living in the unit. The respondent’s policy is that a single person cannot seek to transfer to a two bedroom apartment. Therefore, anyone on the Internal Transfer list is in some form of marital or family unit. They are all given the same opportunity to transfer.

22I note that the applicant agreed that the current respondent policy on under housed applicants was satisfactory. The respondent testified that the current policy also does not prioritize single or pregnant women with one child under the age of one.

23The respondent did revise its policy in the aftermath of the complaint as they believed that there was a gap in its policy for single parents or couples with a single child over the age of one. Those families are now given priority on the internal transfer list after victims of violence, the homeless, those with medically urgent needs and over housed applicants, along with other persons falling within the definition of under housed. There are also other circumstances included in the under housed definition which are not relevant here.

24The fact that the respondent subsequently chose to revise its policy to give priority to single parents or couples with a single child over one year old does not establish that its previous policy was discriminatory. The respondent faces long waiting lists and needs to balance its priorities. Having determined the minimum occupancy standard for single persons and family units of specified size, it is not discriminatory to treat all family units seeking transfers for reasons of personal preference in the same way.

25The Application is dismissed.