Vasu v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 929

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Venkatachalapathi Vasu

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Community Housing Corporation and Rachel Gindil

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: June 29, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 929

Indexed as: Vasu v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation

APPEARANCES

Venkatachalapathi Vasu, Applicant ) Self-represented

Toronto Community Housing Corporation, )

Respondent ) Mary Boushel, Counsel

Rachel Gindil, Respondent ) Self-represented

INTRODUCTION

1In this Application, a tenant of the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) alleges that his landlord and another tenant discriminated against him on the grounds of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, and creed with respect to the occupancy of accommodation. Prior to the hearing of the Application, the applicant filed many Requests for Orders.

2On the first day of the hearing, the applicant withdrew several of his Requests, but four issues arising from the Requests that were not withdrawn are addressed in this Interim Decision.

REQUEST TO AMEND THE APPLICATION DATED JANUARY 28, 2009

3The January 28, 2009 Request to amend the Application seeks to add nine further paragraphs to the remedy section.

4In Odell v. Toronto Transit Commission, [2001] O.H.R.B.I.D. No. 2, the Board of Inquiry stated:

The Board has jurisdiction to amend complaints. In deciding whether or not to permit such amendments, the Board is exercising its discretion. The factors influencing how that discretion will be exercised include the following:

Whether the amendment would occasion actual prejudice to the other party;

Fairness;

The conduct of the party seeking the amendment;

The impact of the proposed amendment on the course of the hearing and any other parties.

5The respondents consented to the proposed amendments. I do not see that they will prejudice or prolong the hearing. I therefore exercise my discretion to grant the applicant’s Request.

REQUEST TO AMEND THE APPLICATION DATED APRIL 22, 2009

6At the hearing, the applicant confirmed that he wishes to amend the Application to argue that TCHC was systemically discriminating against racialized tenants, and tenants of religious minorities. His argument is that TCHC, by refusing to appropriately investigate his complaints of discrimination, perpetuates a view that tenants who are in the racial and religious minority of the building are less valuable than those in the majority. He believes that white tenants dominate the culture of the building, and that TCHC allows them to have power over the tenants who are not white.

7At the hearing, the applicant confirmed he is only seeking to add the following paragraphs:

This shows that in TCHC at the institutional or systemic level, racism is evident in organizational and policies, practices, and procedures and “normal ways of doing things” which may directly or indirectly, consciously or unwittingly, promote, sustain, or entrench differential advantage for Ms. Rachel Gindil and the tenants of the dominant white community and disadvantage for the Applicant a racialized person.

When TCHC ignored and refused to investigate my complaint of racial discrimination and harassment on the grounds of race, color, ethnic origin, place of origin, creed and disabilities and thereby the TCHC perpetuated and promoted the view that the Applicant is less capable or worthy of recognition or value as a human being or as a member of Canadian society which amounts to Systemic or Institutional Racial Discrimination.

8The applicant explained that the word “This” which begins the first paragraph is in reference to TCHC ignoring the applicant’s complaints.

9TCHC and the personal respondent oppose the amendment. TCHC suggests that it would be prejudiced by the addition of the proposed new paragraphs because they do not state which practices, policies or procedures result or contribute to systemic discrimination. TCHC submits that it would therefore be impossible to defend the allegations. I find, however, that the policies, practices and procedures referenced by the proposed amendment, when read with paragraphs 19-23 of the Application, are clearly in relation to TCHC’s alleged failure to take action on complaints made by racialized tenants of discrimination by white tenants.

10With respect to other factors I might consider as set out in Odell above, the proposed amendment will not substantially impact the course of the hearing and the other parties. The respondents were aware from the original Application that the applicant felt that TCHC ignored his complaints of discrimination against himself and other racialized tenants, and that TCHC failed to investigate them. Similarly, the original Application alleges that TCHC’s inaction has a broad impact. It would be fair to allow the applicant to amend his Application to use the specific language identifying this as “systemic” or “institutional” discrimination. While adding the paragraphs is probably not necessary for the applicant to make arguments at the end of the case about the broad impact of TCHC’s alleged inaction, I am exercising my discretion to grant the applicant’s Request to amend. The two paragraphs sought to be added to the Application may be inserted after paragraph 24.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION DATED APRIL 22, 2009

11The applicant also requests numerical data for a period from January 1999 to December 2008 with respect to the colour or race and religion of the tenants of 4455 Bathurst St. (the number of tenants who are “non white and non Jewish”).

12TCHC opposes the Request on the basis that it does not collect or track religious or racial diversity of tenants. Information is collected about tenants’ preferred language of communication but I agree that this information would not be a good indicator of racial or religious identity.

13The applicant argued at the hearing that most of the tenants who are not born in Canada would have provided immigration landing papers to TCHC. TCHC responded that many racialized tenants were born in Canada and would not be represented by a survey of such documents. TCHC argued that the documents would not indicate conclusively the race or religion of tenants. I agree that such documents would not be indicative of the data being sought by the applicant.

14Given that TCHC is not in possession or able to create data from existing documents with respect to the racial and religious characteristics of tenants in the applicant’s building, I deny the applicant’s Request.

APRIL 27, 2009 REQUEST FOR A TRIBUNAL ORDERED INQUIRY

15The applicant confirmed at the hearing that the Inquiry he is seeking should focus on the numerical data of the racial and religious characteristics of the tenants who live in his building. The respondents opposed the Request on the basis that the information being sought is not available to the Tribunal through a search of documents because they do not exist.

16TCHC also opposed the Request for an Inquiry on the basis that the information being sought would not assist in adjudicating the Application filed. I agree that any Inquiry ordered by the Tribunal must be sufficiently linked to the allegations of racial and religious discrimination in the Application so as to assist the Tribunal in adjudicating the Application. The applicant’s theory of systemic racism is based on the failure by TCHC to take action on complaints of discrimination by white tenants against racialized tenants. The racial composition of tenants in the building does not assist the Tribunal in coming to a decision on that theory. The applicant’s Request is therefore denied.

ORDERS

17The Application is amended as directed above.

18The Request for the production and disclosure of numerical data from TCHC with respect to the racial and religious characteristics of the tenants who live in the applicant’s building is denied.

19The Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry is denied.