HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Frederick Crawford
Applicant
-and-
2176534 Ontario Ltd., Edzar Investments Ltd., Structural Group of Companies,
Derek Humble and Joseph Perruccio
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: David A. Wright
Indexed as: Crawford v. 2176534 Ontario
APPEARANCES
Frederick Crawford, Applicant ) On His Own Behalf
2176534 Ontario Ltd., Edzar Investments Ltd., ) E. Alan Garbe,
Structural Group of Companies, Derek Humble ) Counsel
and Joseph Perruccio, Respondents )
INTRODUCTION
1This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination and harassment in accommodation contrary to s. 2 of the Code. The events in question occurred when the applicant sublet a room in a house from Mark Hundevat, the leaseholder, who had lived there for many years. The respondent numbered company was the owner of the house, and Edzar Investments and the Structural Group are related companies. Mr. Perruccio testified that he works for the Structural Group of Companies and Edzar Investments. Mr. Humble is a security consultant who operates a company called Nemesis, which was hired by the landlord.
2The applicant alleges that he was harassed and discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation and receipt of public assistance by the landlord, and by Mr. Humble and Mr. Perruccio acting on the landlord’s behalf. The applicant identifies as a gay man and receives Ontario Works benefits. The HRTO hearing was held on January 11, 2010. Five witnesses testified: the applicant, Mr. Hundevat, Mr. Humble, Mr. Perruccio, and Nelson Cordero, who works with Mr. Perruccio.
3The house where applicant lived is located on Kingston Road in Toronto, and is located next to a 15-unit rooming house which has a common owner. In July 2008, Edzar Investments acquired both properties. Edzar, which does not generally own residential real estate, transferred the properties to the numbered company. Its intention was to eventually demolish the buildings and develop the lands. Mr. Crawford no longer lives in the house.
ALLEGATIONS REGARDING MR. HUMBLE’s ACTIONS
4The landlord had concerns about safety and security of the buildings and hired Mr. Humble’s company, Nemesis, to address these issues. Mr. Humble concluded that the rooming house was in a dangerous state, that it was a serious fire risk, that the fire alarms were not working and that drug use and prostitution were occurring in the building. Mr. Humble testified that because there were no working fire alarms in the rooming house, he engaged a security company to watch for fire risk. He testified that he had the company observe the rooming house for fire from 7 PM to 7 AM for a period of approximately four weeks.
5Mr. Humble also testified that, on behalf of the landlord, he offered cash settlements to the occupants of the rooming house in order to have them vacate the building. As detailed below, similar offers were made to Mr. Hundevat, which he did not accept. By January 2009, Mr. Humble had no further involvement in the matter since all the rooming house tenants had moved out and Mr. Perruccio took steps to secure the rooming house.
6The applicant alleges that during this period he was harassed by the security company. He says that the security guards would call out to the tenants or their guests by saying “hey”, wave when people came in and out of the house, and make notes about the comings and goings of guests. He alleges that this was harassment. He also alleges that Mr. Humble and/or the security guards gathered information about the personal circumstances of the tenants and gave information to the landlord about his receipt of social assistance, age and sexual orientation. He reached that conclusion because Mr. Perruccio appeared to know that he was on social assistance and his age in statements he later made to the applicant (see para. 10 below). The applicant also says that he was harassed by Mr. Humble who came to the door on a regular basis to offer Mr. Hundevat financial compensation to move out of the premises and to collect arrears in rent.
7I need not decide whether any of these events meet the legal definition of harassment. There is no evidence that Mr. Humble or the security guards were collecting information about the applicant’s sexual orientation or receipt of public assistance, and no evidence that any of the other events were connected in any way with the applicant’s sexual orientation or receipt of public assistance. The Tribunal only has the power to address harassment on the grounds specified in the Code, and there is no basis to conclude that the alleged actions of Mr. Humble have any connection with those grounds. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as against Mr. Humble.
ALLEGATIONS REGARDING MR. PERRUCCIO’S ACTIONS
8On February 17, 2009, a portion of the porch of the house collapsed. A temporary repair was made and then, on February 20, Mr. Perruccio came to the property with Mr. Cordero to tear down the porch canopy.
9It is clear that there was considerable conflict between Mr. Perruccio and those who lived in the house, including the applicant. The applicant and others suggested that they would sue the landlord for injuries they allegedly received and objected to the manner in which the respondent intended to address the problem, which was to take down the porch entirely. Mr. Perruccio was upset about what he believed was a failure of the tenants to pay their rent and their interference with what he saw as the landlord’s right to do what it wanted with its property.
10During the hearing, a video clip taken by the applicant was shown and introduced into evidence. It shows Mr. Perruccio haranguing and swearing at the occupants of the house regarding the payment of rent. Mr. Perruccio states that he can do what he wants with the property. The occupants of the house are calmer; they disagree