Meandro v. Brisebois, 2009 HRTO 2277

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BETWEEN:

Eileen Meandro Applicant

-and-

Robert Brisebois Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene Date: December 30, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 2277 Indexed as: Meandro v. Brisebois

Appearances by

Eileen Meandro, Applicant ) On her own behalf Robert Brisebois, Respondent ) On his own behalf

1This Application was brought under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The social areas identified in the Application are housing and services, goods and facilities. The applicant alleges that she has been harassed by both her landlord and other tenants who live in houses near her own on the basis of disability, creed, age and receipt of public assistance.

2Pursuant to a teleconference on April 2, 2009, the issues in this Application were narrowed as follows:

1. The applicant alleges that the respondent had failed to keep her rental accommodation in good repair during the year before the date of her Application. She specifically notes water in the basement, a leaky door, and a furnace that breaks down.
2. The applicant alleges that the respondent told a repair person not to speak to her because she is “nuts and a trouble-maker”.
3. The applicant alleges that the respondent has done nothing to address harassment of the applicant by two of the respondent’s other tenants, who live next door to the applicant. Specifically, she says that, in June 2008, the man who lives next door called her “nuts” and, while conversing with someone across the street, loudly said “I’m going to get rid of that bitch one way or the other”. The applicant also says that the wife of the man next door has referred to the applicant as a “nut”.

3Pursuant to a Interim Decision dated May 12, 2009, 2009 HRTO 614, this application was deferred pending a hearing by the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”). That proceeding was concluded through the withdrawal of the LTB application. Pursuant to a further Interim Decision dated July 23, 2009, 2009 HRTO 1124, this Application was scheduled for a hearing, which took place on November 24, 2009.

4Evidence at the hearing was given by the applicant, the respondent, and Mr. Maurice Gaudreau, who was called by the respondent and who identified himself as a tenant of the respondent and the applicant's next door neighbour.

Failure to keep rental accommodation in good repair

5The applicant’s evidence in regard to this allegation was largely confined to the time she moved in, in 2004. Both parties acknowledge that the issues relating to that time had been the subject of a successful application before the LTB. Since then the applicant has filed six further applications with the LTB. None has been successful.

6During her testimony, the applicant indicated that she still has a problem with mice in the house. However, she was unable to suggest what connection this maintenance issue might have with the grounds of discrimination noted in the Application.

7On the evidence, it appears that there are no current issues in regard to maintenance of the accommodation. More importantly for the purposes of this hearing, I am not satisfied that there is a connection with maintenance issues and the grounds of discrimination noted in the Application.

Repair person told not to speak to the applicant

8Neither party called the repair person as a witness. The applicant believed this incident happened in the summer of 2008. She stated that she had greeted the repair person, and he told her “I was told not to talk to you because you're not right”.

9The respondent recalled advising the repair person not to talk to the applicant. However, he said that this was because the applicant tends to be chatty, and that he did not want the repair person distracted from the job. He denied calling the applicant “a nut” or “not right”.

10It is clear that this type of derogatory remark by a landlord in these circumstances could breach the Code. However, I cannot conclude on a balance of probabilities that the events occurred as alleged.

Harassment by other tenants

11Tenants who allegedly harassed the applicant were not named as respondents; rather, the applicant's position was that the landlord had a duty to take steps to ensure that the applicant was not harassed, and did not do so.

12The applicant gave evidence concerning the mistreatment of her two dogs, including an allegation that people who were not her next door neighbours and were not tenants of the respondent were throwing stones at them. She also raised an incident in which someone poured gasoline on one dog. It was her view that this person was Mr. Gaudreau. The applicant said that when she called the dog, he came from Mr. Geaudreau’s backyard. She did not see Mr. Gaudreau pouring gasoline on the dog. The incident occurred some three years ago, which is outside the time period to which this Application is confined. Mr. Gaudreau adamantly denied pouring gasoline on the dog.

13In respect of the allegations of disrespectful comments made by Mr. Gaudreau to others, the applicant admitted that her knowledge of what was said came from a friend of hers, who was in a car passing by when she heard the remarks, and later told the applicant about them. Mr. Gaudreau denied the comments attributed to him. He said that if he had wished to make those remarks “I would have said it to her face”.

14I asked the respondent what he had done in response to the applicant's allegations. He said that he had asked Mr. Gaudreau about them and Mr. Gaudreau had denied it. He also said “it's all hearsay”, referring to the fact that the applicant had admitted not hearing the alleged remarks, and to relying on the account given by her friend in the car. The respondent testified that the applicant is a good tenant, but for her frequent complaints.

15There is no doubt that the applicant and her next door neighbour are not on good terms. I accept that the applicant feels that she is being harassed. However, the applicant's next door neighbour was not a party to this Application. Therefore, what is at issue is whether the respondent landlord was sufficiently diligent in ensuring that harassment of one by another of his tenants, related to grounds of discrimination under the Code, does not occur. As a result of this hearing, I believe that the respondent landlord is more aware of his ongoing responsibilities under the Code. However, on the evidence in respect of the allegations raised in this Application, I cannot conclude on a balance of probabilities that the Code has been breached.

16The Application is dismissed.