HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kamel Boukort

Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Community Housing Corporation and David Loveridge

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: January 29, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 214

Indexed as: Boukort v. Ottawa Community Housing Corporation

appearances BY

Kamel Boukort, Applicant ) On his own behalf

Ottawa Community Housing Corporation ) Gabriel Cormier, Counsel

and David Loveridge, Respondents )

INTRODUCTION

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on November 5, 2008, which alleges that the respondents subjected him to (a) sexual harassment, (b) sexual advances, (c) harassment and discrimination because of his race, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, family status, marital status, and age, and (d) reprisals for rejecting sexual advances and claiming and enforcing his rights under the Code, all with respect to housing.

2The respondents filed a Response on January 20, 2009, which denies the allegations of sexual harassment and advances, harassment and discrimination based on the above Code grounds, and reprisal.

BACKGROUND

3The Ottawa Community Housing Corporation (the “organization respondent”) is a social housing provider, which rents housing to members of the public on a rent-geared-to-income basis. David Loveridge (the “individual respondent”) is the Director of Operations at the South District Office of the organization respondent. The applicant is a tenant of the organization respondent. His apartment unit is managed by the South District Office.

4In his Application, the applicant alleges that three female staff members (“G.T.”, “C.M.” and “S.L.”) of the South District Office sexually harassed and made sexual advances towards him in the course of dealing with him, and that after he rejected their advances and complained to the management of the organization respondent, G.T. recalculated his rent incorrectly, the individual respondent issued a trespass notice against him, and the respondents failed to respond to his request to fix a blocked sink in his apartment.

5In their Response, the respondents deny that G.T., C.M. and S.L. sexually harassed or made sexual advances towards the applicant. They state the applicant’s rent was calculated in accordance with the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 27, as amended, and the information that he provided with respect to his means, and that the individual respondent asked the police to serve the applicant with a trespass notice because he was disruptive in the reception area of the office. The respondents deny that any actions that they took were related to the applicant’s alleged rejection of sexual advances or because he complained to the management of the organization respondent.

6The respondents also state that at a hearing before the Landlord and Tenant Board the applicant alleged that another female staff member (“K.H.”) at the organization respondent’s Head Office sexually harassed him by the way she signed a Certificate of Service. They further state that as a follow up to the applicant’s allegations of sexual harassment and to resolve his issues with women, the individual respondent assigned a male staff member (“A.N.”) to assist the applicant in his dealings with the organization respondent.

7In his Reply, which is dated February 13, 2009, the applicant alleges that after he filed his Application, the respondents were convicted of illegally entering his apartment. He also alleges that K.H. “charmed” him many times, including in writing. He further states that the individual respondent’s decision to assign A.N. to deal with him was an admission that female staff members had sexually harassed and made sexual advances towards him.

8In his Application, the applicant also requested that no women deal with his Application at the Tribunal because “all women are doing the same thing with me.” At the hearing, he explained that female staff members from the organization respondent have spoken to other women about him, which has led to harassment by a female tenant in his building, the refusal by prospective employers to hire him, and the refusal of female staff at the Tribunal and the Human Rights Legal Support Centre to speak with him about his case.

9The hearing of the merits of the Application took place on July 9, 2009. I heard the evidence of five witnesses: (1) the applicant, (2) the individual respondent, (3) G.T., (4) C.M., and (5) S.L. The last three witnesses are all housing administrators in the South District Office, whose main job duty is to calculate the rent of tenants.

10During his opening statement, the respondents’ legal counsel requested, for the first time, that the Tribunal order the removal of the individual respondent from the Application. The applicant opposed the Request. I denied the Request because the respondents’ legal counsel failed to provide a credible explanation why he had not made the Request earlier, and the applicant, who was not represented by legal counsel, was substantially prejudiced by the lateness of the Request.

11During the hearing, the applicant made a number of new allegations of sexual harassment and advances against K.H., as well as new allegations of discrimination, harassment and reprisal against the respondents that post dated the filing of the parties’ pleadings. The respondent objected on the basis that the new allegations were not part of the subject matter of the Application.

12On November 19, 2009, four months after the hearing, the applicant submitted further new allegations of discrimination to the Tribunal and the respondents.

13Rule 5.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that where a party seeks to present evidence or make submissions with respect to a fact or issue that was not raised in the Application, Response or Reply, the Tribunal may refuse to allow the party to present evidence or make submissions about the fact or issue unless satisfied that there would be no substantial prejudice and no undue delay to the proceedings.

14In my view, the respondents were substantially prejudiced by the fact that the applicant raised new allegations at the hearing. Specifically, they were unable to submit all their documentary evidence or call non-party witnesses to address his allegations. I am also not satisfied at this point that it will be fair, just and expeditious to re-open the hearing to deal with the applicant’s post hearing allegations. Therefore, I will not admit any evidence with respect to the new allegations.

15Accordingly, this Decision only deals with the allegations in the applicant’s Application and Reply, which cover the period from July 2007 to December 2008. The applicant can, of course, file a new Application under section 34 of the Code with respect to his post December 2008 allegations.

EVIDENCE

16In July 2007, the applicant met with C.M. to sign a lease to rent a rent-geared-to-income apartment from the organization respondent. Pursuant to the tenancy agreement, the applicant received a rent subsidy based on his household income. He was also required to report any changes in his household income to the organization respondent because it would affect the amount of the rent subsidy that he was eligible to receive.

17The applicant testified that the sexual harassment and sexual advances towards him by female staff members of the South District Office began at this meeting. He stated that C.M. spoke a little bit of Arabic to him, and when he asked her how she knew how to speak Arabic, she told him that her ex-husband is Lebanese. He believed that C.M. initiated this conversation as a sexual advance because she knew that Arab men are good in bed and noticed that he was Arab. The applicant also stated that during this meeting and in subsequent meetings, C.M. lifted her breasts up with her hands to show them to him.

18C.M. testified that she never sexually harassed or made sexual advances towards the applicant. She admitted that she spoke a few words of Arabic to the applicant, and told him that she learned Arabic from her ex-husband, but denied that anything she said had a sexual meaning. She stated that she speaks some Arabic and Spanish, and, to be courteous, often greets Arabic and Spanish-speaking tenants in their own language. C.M. also denied that she ever lifted her breasts up her with hands to show them to the applicant.

19In April 2008, the applicant met with S.L. to provide information about a change in his household income. Specifically, the applicant had started a new job several months earlier, but had not reported his change in household income to the organization respondent. S.L. recalculated and increased the applicant’s rent retroactive to January 1, 2009 based on the increase in his household income.

20The applicant testified that during his meeting with S.L. and in subsequent meetings with her, she sexually harassed and made sexual advances towards him. Specifically, she turned around, bent over, and showed her back and rear end to him.

21S.L. testified that she never sexually harassed or made sexual advances towards the applicant. She stated that she has no idea what the applicant is referring to when he alleges that she showed her back and rear end to him. She admitted that she may have turned her back to the applicant to photocopy documents, but denied that any of her movements had a sexual meaning.

22In September 2008, the applicant met twice with G.T. to request a recalculation and retroactive decrease of the previous rent increase, and to provide information about another change in his household income (he lost his job in August). G.T. recalculated his monthly rent and decreased it retroactively to $297 for the period May to August. She also recalculated and lowered his rent effective September 1 based on the change in household income resulting from his loss of employment.

23The applicant testified that during his meetings with G.T. she sexually harassed and made sexual advances towards him. He stated that the sexual advances actually began prior to the September 2008 meetings. Specifically, when he came to the office on one occasion G.T. was discussing her boyfriend and looking over at him. He believed that G.T. was making a sexual advance towards him.

24The applicant testified that G.T.’s sexual advances towards him intensified in September 2008. Specifically, when he met with her on September 2, she went out and came back with lipstick on to sexually attract him. He also stated that when he met with her on September 15, she told him twice: “Sex? No? You are going to be in trouble.” He stated that when she recalculated his retroactive rent decrease, she based it on 16 weeks, rather than 20 weeks, because the number “six” means “sex”. He believed that G.T. calculated a lesser retroactive rent decrease than he was entitled to as a reprisal for rejecting her sexual advances.

25G.T. testified that she never sexually harassed or made sexual advances towards the applicant. She admitted that she and a co-worker may have discussed their boyfriends within an earshot of the applicant, which was inappropriate, but denied that she was trying to give a sexual message to the applicant. She also admitted that she sometimes reapplies her lipstick during the work day, and may have done so on September 2, 2008, but denied that she was trying to sexually attract the applicant. She also denied threatening the applicant with a reprisal if he did not have sex with her on September 15. She admitted that she may have erroneously recalculated the applicant’s retroactive rent decrease based on 16 rather than 20 weeks, but stated if she did so it was a mistake and did not have any sexual meaning.

26On September 29, 2008, the applicant submitted a letter to the South District Office, which was addressed to the individual respondent. The letter requested an internal review of G.T.’s rent calculations and alleged he had been subjected to harassment by administrative staff at the office. The letter stated, in part:

… a period of twenty weeks has to be considered from Apr 14 until Aug 31 and then my rent must be reviewed to 244 $/month for May, June, July and Aug

On Sept 8, [G.T.] wrote that my household membership has remained he same without prove in the same time she counted wrongly sexteen weeks for the period from Apr 14 and omitted by that to count at least the earning of 75 $

She was thinking of something else.

On Sept 15, [G.T.] made comments and threats to me

On Sept sexteen, [S.L.] sent me a letter requesting to fill out a form without any other raison than to embarrass me…. [Emphasis added]

27In cross-examination, the applicant admitted that he had written “sexteen” as opposed to “sixteen” in the letter, but stated that it was a spelling mistake. He blamed the mistake on the unwanted sexual harassment and sexual advances that he was experiencing.

28In response to the applicant’s letter, the organization respondent’s staff scheduled an internal review of the calculation of his rent to be heard on October 7, 2008 at the South District Office. The applicant attended the office, but did not participate in the internal review because of a dispute between him, on the one hand, and G.T. and the individual respondent, on the other hand, which resulted in the issuance of a trespass notice to the applicant. The notice was signed by the individual respondent and prohibited the applicant from entering or trespassing on the property of the South District Office.

29The applicant testified that when he arrived at the reception area on October 7, 2008, G.T. was at the front desk, but refused to speak with him. He stated that he waited for 22 minutes and asked to speak with the individual respondent, but his request was refused. He stated that the individual respondent eventually came out, told him to leave, and called the police, who gave him a trespass notice. He believed that the individual respondent’s decision to issue him a trespass notice was a reprisal for his September 29 letter, which alleged that he had been harassed by staff at the office.

30G.T. testified that she was at the front desk when the applicant arrived on October 7, 2008. She stated that the applicant arrived late, but the review team was also late. She stated that she informed the responsible staff person that the applicant had arrived for the internal review, but the applicant soon became impatient and started yelling at her.

31C.M. testified that she went to the front desk to replace G.T., who was upset by the applicant’s behaviour. She stated that when she arrived the applicant was screaming at the individual respondent. She stated that the applicant was screaming so loud that she had difficulty conversing with another tenant whom she was trying to serve.

32The individual respondent admitted that he issued the applicant a trespass notice, but denied that it was a reprisal in response to the applicant’s September 29, 2008 letter. He testified that he went to the front desk and saw the applicant yelling at G.T. He stated that he asked the applicant to stop yelling, to join him in a meeting room to discuss the matter, and to leave the building, all to no avail. He stated that he warned the applicant that he would call the police if the applicant continued yelling and refused to leave, but the applicant refused to comply. He stated that he then directed his staff to call the police. He stated that when the police arrived, they spoke with the applicant, and, in the meantime, he directed his staff to prepare a trespass notice. He stated that he gave the trespass notice to the police, who handed it to the applicant and asked him to leave the building.

33In cross examination, the individual respondent admitted that although the respondents respect the law, they can make mistakes.

34The applicant denied that he was yelling or screaming during his interactions with G.T. and the individual respondent. He stated that he was just “talking” to them.

35The internal review team met on October 7, 2008 in the absence of the applicant and decided to retroactively decrease his monthly rent to $268 for the period May to August.

36The applicant requested a further internal review because of his inability to attend the internal review on October 7, 2008. Because of the trespass notice against the applicant with respect to the South District Office, the organization respondent dealt with his request at its Head Office. K.H., a female staff person, was responsible for handling the applicant’s file.

37On November 6, 2008, he applicant met with an internal review team, which consisted of K.H. and two other individuals, at the Head Office. K.H. prepared a case record entry that stated that it was difficult to recalculate the applicant’s retroactive rent decrease properly because the income records from his employer were not clear, and the team was only able to do so based on the applicant's answers to their questions. On November 10, the internal review team decided, based on further information that the applicant had provided, to retroactively decrease his monthly rent to $244 for the period May to August. This was the exact amount that the applicant was asking for in his September 29 letter to the individual respondent.

38In a written document that the applicant submitted to the Tribunal, he referred to the date of the internal review meeting as “Nov 6=sex”.

39The applicant also testified that K.H. sexually harassed and made a sexual advance towards him on November 28, 2008 when she signed a Certificate of Service to acknowledge receipt of a Notice of Hearing at the Landlord and Tenant Board from him. Specifically, he stated that the way she signed the Certificate of Service was a sexual advance towards him. In a written submission to the Landlord and Tenant Board, he explained:

Other prove of sexual harassment

When you observe the copy of the document attached: certificate of service, you can see a K inside an O of HOUSING written by [K.H.] in front of me who wrote again Y of COMMUNITY and again U of HOUSING

It is not a mistake because it is a message that means: why (Y) you (U) don’t let K=[K.H.] inside the O=HOUSING=MY UNIT

That proves again the discrimination against me=the sexual harassment by OHC….

40In a written document that the applicant submitted to the Tribunal, he stated that he believed that K.H. wanted to have sex with him because she knew that “I am a great person that any woman wants him in her [bed].”

41K.H. did not testify before the Tribunal.

42On or about November 4, 2008, the applicant requested that the organization respondent fix a blocked sink in his apartment. Although the applicant initially alleged in his Application that the organization respondent’s failure to fix his sink within two weeks constituted further discrimination, by the time of the hearing he was arguing that the organization respondent’s illegal entry into his apartment to fix the sink was the real problem. Specifically, he alleged that the illegal entry was a reprisal against him for complaining about sexual harassment and discrimination.

43In late November 2008, an employee of the organization respondent entered the applicant’s apartment and repaired his sink. On November 28, the applicant filed an Application with the Landlord and Tenant Board, which alleged that the organization respondent, its superintendent or its agent had illegally entered his apartment.

44On December 10, 2008, the Landlord and Tenant Board held a hearing to decide the Application. On December 12, it issued an Order that determined that the organization respondent had illegally entered the applicant’s apartment and ordered it to refrain from illegally entering his apartment. However, the Board also accepted the organization respondent’s explanation for the illegal entry:

The Landlord did not dispute that there was an illegal entry, but submitted two specific reasons for that entry. The first reason was that the Tenant had called for a repair so often that the Landlord had assumed it was an emergency, and secondly there seems to have been some miscommunication between employees of the Landlord with respect to whether or not permission to enter had been obtained. I accept the Landlord’s explanation.

45The applicant testified that the organization respondent’s illegal entry into his apartment was a reprisal for complaining about sexual harassment and discrimination. None of the respondents’ witnesses specifically addressed this allegation.

46On December 18, 2008, the individual respondent sent the applicant an e-mail, which informed him that he had lifted the trespass notice against him, and he had assigned A.H., a male staff member at the South District Office, to facilitate his access to the office’s services, to address his concern that he had not been treated fairly by other staff, and to assist him in dealing with any problems or issues with his tenancy.

47The applicant testified that the fact that the individual respondent proposed that he deal with A.H., who is a man, was an admission that the female staff at the South District Office had sexually harassed him. The individual respondent denied that his proposal was such an admission. He testified that he assigned A.H. to deal with the applicant in order to protect his female staff and to accommodate the applicant.

48Towards the end of the applicant’s testimony in chief, I read out the Code grounds that he listed in his Application, and asked him to identify the facts that he was relying upon to establish harassment and discrimination. The applicant’s response with respect to the grounds was as follows:

• Race, ancestry, place of origin, and citizenship: C.M spoke Arabic to him and all the staff knew that he was an immigrant.

• Creed: All the staff knew that he is from Algeria and a Muslim.

• Sexual orientation: G.T., C.M., S.L., and K.H. perceived him to be “asexual” because he rejected their sexual advances. When Canadian women want to sleep with a man, they act as if it is a requirement, not an option.

• Family status and marital status: G.T., C.M., S.L., and K.H., who are all single women, knew from the information on his file that he was also single and had no children.

• Age: G.T., C.M., S.L., and K.H. knew his age (late thirties at the time of the alleged incidents) and questioned why he was single and had no children.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

49The Application relates to sections 2, 7 and 8 of the Code, which provide:

2(1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance.

(2) Every person who occupies accommodation has a right to freedom from harassment by the landlord or agent of the landlord or by an occupant of the same building because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance.

7(1) Every person who occupies accommodation has a right to freedom from harassment because of sex by the landlord or agent of the landlord or by an occupant of the same building.

(3) Every person has a right to be free from,

(a) a sexual solicitation or advance made by a person in a position to confer, grant or deny a benefit or advancement to the person where the person making the solicitation or advance knows or ought reasonably to know that it is unwelcome; or

(b) a reprisal or a threat of reprisal for the rejection of a sexual solicitation or advance where the reprisal is made or threatened by a person in a position to confer, grant or deny a benefit or advancement to the person.

8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.

50The applicant has the onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that a violation of the Code has occurred. A balance of probabilities means that it is more likely than not a violation has occurred. In the case at hand, the issue that I am therefore required to determine is whether the applicant has proven on a balance of probabilities that the respondents subjected him to (a) sexual harassment, (b) sexual advances, (c) harassment and discrimination because of his race, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, family status, marital status, and age, and (d) reprisals for rejecting sexual advances and claiming and enforcing his rights under the Code. For the reasons that follow, I have decided that the applicant has not proven his case.

51This Decision turns largely on my assessment of the credibility of the evidence given by the applicant, the individual respondent, and non-party witnesses. In assessing credibility, I am guided by the principles set out by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Faryna v. Chorny, 1951 CanLII 252 (BC CA), [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354:

The credibility of interested witnesses, particularly in cases of conflict of evidence, cannot be gauged solely by the test of whether the personal demeanour of the particular witness carries conviction of the truth. The test must reasonably subject his story to an examination of its consistency with the probabilities that surround the currently existing conditions. In short, the real test of the truth of the story of a witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions. [Emphasis added]

52In assessing the credibility of the evidence, I have considered the oral testimony of the parties and the non-party witnesses, as well as the documentary evidence admitted at the hearing.

53The applicant provided his evidence in a forthright manner and I do not question his subjective belief that the respondents subjected him to sexual harassment, sexual advances, harassment and discrimination based on the various Code grounds, and reprisals. There is no doubt in my mind that he sincerely believes that the allegations in his Application are true. That said, I did not find his evidence to be credible.

54I was particularly troubled by the fact that although most of the alleged incidents of sexual harassment and sexual advances towards him would appear to a reasonable person to be implausible or, at best, ambiguous, the applicant was absolutely certain that they occurred. In short, the applicant interpreted these alleged incidents in black and white terms, and refused to admit to any ambiguities. I was also troubled by the applicant’s implausible belief that there is an organized conspiracy of women who are trying to thwart and oppress him in key areas of his life, including housing, employment, and legal proceedings.

55By contrast, I found the evidence of the respondent’s witnesses to be both forthright and credible. Unlike the applicant, the respondents’ witnesses, particularly the individual respondent and G.T. who were the key witnesses, did not testify about the alleged incidents in black and white terms. The individual respondent candidly admitted that the respondents can make mistakes, and G.T. admitted that she may have made a mistake in calculating the applicant’s rent on one occasion, and may have behaved inappropriately, albeit not illegally, in front of him on another occasion.

56Where there was a conflict between the applicant’s evidence and the respondents’ evidence, I believed the evidence of the respondents.

57In his closing submissions, the respondents’ legal counsel suggested that the applicant “seek help”. The applicant viewed this as a suggestion that he has a mental health disability and should not be believed because of his alleged disability. I want to make it clear that there was no evidence before me that the applicant has a mental health disability, and my assessment of his credibility is therefore not based on an actual or perceived mental health disability.

58I now turn to my assessment of the evidence. I find that C.M. did not sexually harass or make a sexual advance towards the applicant, or stereotype him because he is Arab, when she said a few words in Arabic to him. Her explanation that she often greets Arabic- and Spanish-speaking tenants in their own language in order to be courteous is credible. I also find that the C.M. did not sexually harass or make sexual advances towards the applicant by lifting her breasts up with her hands to show them to him. It is more likely that C.M. was adjusting her clothing and the applicant wrongly interpreted this action as a sexual advance towards him.

59I also find that S.L. did not sexually harass or make a sexual advance towards the applicant when she turned her back to him and bent over. Her explanation that she may have turned her back to the applicant to photocopy some documents, but has no idea what the applicant is referring to when he alleges that she intentionally showed her back and rear end to him, is credible. I believe that S.L. probably turned around to photocopy some documents or perform some other administrative task, and may have bent over to pick something up off a lower surface, and the applicant wrongly interpreted this action as a sexual advance towards him.

60I also find that G.T. did not sexually harass or make sexual advances towards the applicant when she discussed her boyfriend in front of him, when she reapplied her lipstick on a day that he was in the office, and when she recalculated his retroactive rent decrease based on 16 rather than 20 weeks. I accept G.T.’s evidence that she was not trying to making sexual advances towards the applicant when any of these incidents occurred. Discussing boyfriends, reapplying lipstick and doing calculations with numbers are the kinds of things that women sometimes do in an office (men do similar kinds of things), and I find that the applicant wrongly interpreted these actions as sexual advances towards him. I also find, based on some of the written documents that the applicant submitted, that he, not G.T., interprets the number “six” as “sex”.

61I also find that G.T. did not threaten the applicant with “trouble” if he rejected her sexual advances, and did not recalculate the applicant’s retroactive rent decrease based on 16 rather than 20 weeks as a reprisal against him because he rejected her sexual advances. Given the number of comments and the incidents that the applicant misinterpreted, I do not believe that G.T. threatened him. In my view, the applicant most likely misinterpreted something that she said. G.T.’s explanation that the number of weeks than she used to recalculate the applicant’s retroactive rent decrease may have been a mistake, but was not a reprisal against him, is also credible. I find that is more likely than not that the applicant provided further information to the internal review team, which he did not provide to her, and that is why the internal review team was able to do the correct recalculation.

62I also find that the individual respondent did not issue a trespass notice against the applicant as a reprisal for filing a complaint letter. I do not believe the applicant’s evidence that he was just “talking” to G.T. and the individual respondent while he was waiting to attend the internal review meeting. I find that the evidence of the individual respondent, G.T. and C.M. that the applicant was yelling and screaming, and refused to stop or leave the building upon request, is more credible.

63I also find that the way that K.H. signed the Certificate of Service to acknowledge receipt of a Notice of Hearing at the Landlord and Tenant Board from him was not a sexual advance towards him. Although K.H. did not testify at the hearing, the applicant’s interpretation of what she wrote is implausible and not credible.

64I also do not find that the organization respondent’s illegal entry into the applicant’s apartment to fix his blocked sink was a reprisal against him for complaining about sexual harassment and discrimination. Although the respondents’ witnesses did not specifically address this allegation, the Landlord and Tenant Board addressed the illegal entry issue and accepted the organization respondent’s explanation that it occurred because (a) the applicant had called for a repair so often that the organization respondent assumed it was an emergency, and (b) there was some miscommunication between employees of the organization respondent with respect to whether or not permission to enter the applicant’s apartment had been obtained. Although I am not bound by the Board’s finding, the applicant did not attempt to rebut it and I find that it is persuasive.

65Finally, I do not find that the respondents subjected the applicant to harassment and discrimination because of his race, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, family status, marital status, and age. The applicant’s allegations with respect to these grounds were linked to his allegations of sexual harassment and advances, and any additional facts that he relied upon were minimal. As discussed above, I did not find that the respondents subjected the applicant to sexual harassment or advances, or reprisals. The mere fact that the organization respondent’s female staff knew that he was an immigrant from Algeria, a Muslim, single, childless, and in his late thirties is insufficient to support a finding of harassment and discrimination. Furthermore, the applicant did not present any evidence to prove that G.T., C.M., S.L., and K.H. perceived him to be “asexual”.

ORDER

66The Application is dismissed.