Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Pearse Gribbon Applicant
-and-
Bradel Properties Ltd. o/a Brentin Manor and Jamie Smith Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: June 12, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 842 Indexed as: Gribbon v. Bradel Properties
APPEARANCES:
Pearse Gribbon, Applicant ) Frank Gribbon, Representative
Bradel Properties Ltd. o/a Brentin Manor ) and Jamie Smith, Respondents ) Kristin Carnie, Counsel
1This is an Application filed on August 8, 2008, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (“the Code”). The applicant, who was 20 years old at the time of the events, alleges that he was denied housing by the respondents on the basis of his age.
2A hearing was held in this matter on May 19, 2009, in London. At the hearing, I heard evidence from the applicant, from Jamie Smith, and from Carol Graham, a supervisor with the corporate respondent (Bradel). In many respects the evidence of the witnesses was consistent with each other. In some respects, however, the evidence of Jamie Smith and Pearse Gribbon differs and in these instances, I have had to decide whose version of events to accept. Ultimately, I prefer the evidence of Jamie Smith. In making this decision, I have considered such factors as the internal consistency of the witnesses’ evidence, inconsistencies and contradictions in relation to other evidence, and generally, what is most reasonable and probable in all the surrounding circumstances.
3It is not in dispute that the applicant responded to an advertisement on the website “Kijiji” for an apartment at Brentin Manor, operated by Bradel. The advertisement was placed by a tenant at Brentin Manor who wished to leave before the end of his lease and was looking for a tenant to replace him. The advertisement offered prospective tenants the first and last months of their tenancy free of rent. The applicant contacted the tenant, and arranged to view the apartment. The applicant and his father viewed the apartment together. Afterwards, they visited the rental office in the building and spoke to Jamie Smith, a rental agent for Bradel.
4The applicant and his father obtained a rental application form from Ms. Smith. They conveyed to Ms. Smith that they were intending to rent the apartment together. At the top of the rental form is a space listing the names of the applicants for tenancy. At another place on the form is a space listing names of proposed occupants. The back of the form requires applicants to provide details about such matters as their current living arrangements, names of current and previous landlords, employment, income, banking information, assets and references (“applicant’s particulars”). It also asks for their date of birth. This information is not required of persons identified as “occupants”, but only for those identified on the form as “applicants”. If an application for tenancy is accepted, the applicants are required to sign a lease with Bradel. Occupants are not required to sign the lease.
5There are some differences in the evidence of Pearse Gribbon and Jamie Smith on what occurred in their conversation about completing the application form. Pearse Gribbon states that Ms. Smith asked him how old he was, and indicated several times that he could “be seen as a child”. He states that he was angry, told her that “it wasn’t working” and walked out with the application form.
6Ms. Smith states that when she showed them the application form, she pointed out that there were areas on it pertaining to “applicants”, and to “occupants”. She states that she did not ask Pearse Gribbon how old he was. Rather, she testified that she told him she didn’t know how old he was, but if he was not working and living with his father, he could be seen as a child living with his father and be put down on the form as an “occupant.” According to Ms. Smith, Pearse Gribbon then confirmed that he was twenty years old and working full time. Ms. Smith states that she told him “perfect, then you can both go down as applicants.” She then marked on the application form, with two “X”s, where Pearse Gribbon and Frank Gribbon were to fill in the form as applicants.
7She also marked with “X”s the signature lines for applicants acknowledging, among other things, that the landlord may use the information to collect information about them as prospective tenants, and the signature lines on the back of the form certifying that the information on the applicant’s particulars is correct.
8Pearse Gribbon and Jamie Smith agree that he returned a while later, with the application form. On the form, he listed himself as the sole applicant. Next to the “X” intended to be completed by a second applicant, he had written “N/A”. On the back of the form, as required of applicants, he had provided information about his current living arrangements, names of current and previous landlords, employment, income, banking information, assets, references and date of birth, none of which he objected to providing. His father was listed as an occupant on the front of the form, and did not provide any of the information on the back of the form.
9Ms. Smith states that when Pearse Gribbon gave her the form, she immediately noticed that Frank Gribbon was listed as an occupant, rather than as an applicant together with Pearse Gribbon. She also noticed that Frank Gribbon had not provided any of the information on the back of the form. She informed Pearse Gribbon that the application was incomplete, in that Frank was listed as an occupant, that they had indicated the intention to rent the apartment together, and that she required Frank to complete the back of the form. She testified that it was during this conversation that Pearse informed her that “it wasn’t working”, and left in anger.
10Pearse Gribbon testified that Ms. Smith questioned why Frank Gribbon was listed as an occupant. He states that she told him again that he could be seen as a child, and listed as an occupant with his father as the applicant.
11All are agreed that Pearse Gribbon returned again to see Ms. Smith a few minutes later, with his father. The Gribbons were upset at this point. According to Pearse Gribbon, Ms. Smith rejected the application again, on the basis that Pearse was listed as the applicant and Frank the occupant.
12According to Jamie Smith, when the Gribbons returned, they asked why the application form had been