Trevor Ellis v. Regional Municipality of Peel, 2010 HRTO 1031

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Trevor Ellis

Applicant

-and-

Regional Municipality of Peel

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim
Date: May 11, 2010
Citation: 2010 HRTO 1031
Indexed as: Ellis v. Peel (Regional Municipality)

1This Application was filed June 30, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on November 27, 2007 alleging that the respondent, the Regional Municipality of Peel, had discriminated against him with respect to housing on the basis of age, colour and family status. In his statement of additional facts, the applicant narrowed his claim to discrimination on the basis of age or because he pays low rent in accommodation, contrary to section 2 of the Code.

3A hearing was held on May 6, 2010. I heard the evidence of the applicant, Glen O’Brecht, Director of Residential Property Management of the respondent, Shannon Murphy, the Financial Control Clerk in the Resident Services Division and Debbie Ridd, the Supervisor, Resident Services.

4The respondent is governed by the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000, s.o. 2000, c.27, and under that Act is responsible for all social housing providers in Peel. Its mandate under the Act is, among other things, to manage mixed use housing and maintain a ratio of 40% rent geared to income spaces compared to 60% market rate spaces.

5The applicant was approved for subsidized housing based on ”rent geared to income” which means that his rent was determined based on his income at any given time. He obtained a subsidized unit in a non-profit housing corporation owned by the respondent in 2002.

6In 2005, the respondent learned that the applicant, whose rent was set at the minimum amount (on an assumption of virtually no employment or other income), was in fact earning income. The respondent sent the applicant a request for updated income information for the purpose of determining the appropriate rent.

7The applicant provided some income information in November 2005. However, I accept the evidence of the respondents’ witnesses that the information provided was not adequate or sufficient to determine the applicant’s income. The respondent sought further information in January 2006 and the applicant provided further information.

8The applicant was further advised in April and October 2006 that this information was not sufficient. The applicant disputes receiving the April and October 2006 notices requesting further information. I find that nothing turns on this discrepancy.

9On October 25, 2006 the respondent issued a notice of rent increase and loss of subsidy advising the applicant that he would lose his rent subsidy effective March 1, 2007 from which time he would be expected to pay market rent of $845.00/month.

10The applicant appealed this decision to revoke his subsidy in accordance with the appeal procedures set out in the Act, to the Service Manager. The Service Manager rendered a Decision on November 21, 2006 stating that the subsidy would be reinstated upon provision of certain information by December 15, 2006. The applicant did not provide the requested information.

11The applicant testified at the hearing that he could not understand why the respondent did not accept the documents he had submitted about his employment. It is unnecessary for me to inquire into the applicant’s perception of unfairness. The point is that the applicant’s own evidence at the hearing confirms that he did not provide the requested information.

12The applicant fell behind in the payment of the market rent and, in May 2007, an application for termination of tenancy for failure to pay rent came on before the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “LTB”). The LTB determined that it had no jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s arguments relating to the calculation of his subsidy and directed that the applicant’s tenancy be terminated. Eviction was carried out around June 2007.

13The applicant’s request for reconsideration by the LTB was denied and a judicial review application to Divisional Court was also dismissed.

14Essentially, the applicant’s argument is that the respondent refused to accept his documentation as adequate and used the opportunity to charge him market rent because of his age and the fact that he was entitled to a rental subsidy, so that they could rent his unit at market rent and/or attract younger tenants. He presented no evidence to support his theory, apart from his own evidence that he believed he had provided the information they needed, which led him to infer that discrimination must be at play.

15The respondent’s evidence is compelling that the applicant failed to provide the requested information and that they were unable to determine the applicant’s actual income and calculate his entitlement to a subsidy. I am satisfied that the only reason the respondent reduced the applicant’s rent subsidy and terminated his tenancy was because he did not comply with the respondent’s repeated requests for employment income information and his subsequent failure to pay market rent. My conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the applicant’s specific unit was filled from the wait list by a single person of approximately the applicant’s age who was in receipt of a rent subsidy.

16The Application is dismissed.