Heron v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2010 HRTO 2322

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Roger Heron

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Community Housing Corporation

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: November 22, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2322

Indexed as: Heron v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation

APPEARANCES BY

Roger Heron, Applicant ) Self-represented

Toronto Community Housing Corporation, ) Gordon Steinberg, Counsel

Respondent )

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination in housing on the grounds of race, place of origin, citizenship, disability and sex.

2In a Case Assessment Direction dated September 16, 2010, the Tribunal directed that a Summary Hearing be held, pursuant to Rules 19A.1 and 19A.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which read as follows:

19A.1 The Tribunal may hold a summary hearing, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, on the question of whether an Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.

19A.2 Rules 16 and 17 do not apply to summary hearings. The Tribunal may give directions about steps the parties must take prior to the summary hearing, including disclosure or witness statements.

3The Case Assessment Direction directed that the summary hearing be held by way of telephone conference call. However, at the applicant’s request, he attended the hearing in person. The respondent participated by telephone conference.

4As stated in Rule 19A.2, when the Tribunal directs that an Application will be the subject of a summary hearing, the respondent is not required to file a Response or any other information, unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. In this case, the respondent has not filed a Response and has not been directed to provide any other information.

BACKGROUND

5The respondent provides low cost housing to eligible people. The demand for this housing is significantly greater than the supply and there is a waiting list. The applicant was on the waiting list in 2003 but was removed in 2005 when he did not respond to a request for information from the respondent. In 2008, he contacted a social service agency and was again put on the waiting list.

6The applicant identifies a number of factors in relation to the processes followed by the respondents which he alleges result in discrimination and in a longer waiting list than is necessary.

DISCRIMINATION ON THE GROUNDS OF SEX

7The respondent gives priority to victims of abuse. On the basis of a newspaper article, the applicant understands that 75% of the units that come available are given to women who are victims of abuse. He alleges that this results in discrimination on the grounds of sex. Although he did not identify this as a ground in his Application, he discussed this allegation in the narrative of the Application and at the summary hearing.

8The respondent has adopted a policy that gives priority to victims of abuse. In my view, this policy does not result in discrimination on the grounds of sex. While it is true that most victims of abuse are women, it does not follow that the policy discriminates against men. If there is differential treatment, it is between people who are victims of abuse and people who are not victims of abuse. This is not a ground that is covered under the Code.

9I find that the applicant has no reasonable prospect of success in respect of his allegations of discrimination on the grounds of sex and this aspect of the Application is dismissed on that basis.

DISCRIMINATION ON THE GROUNDS OF RACE, PLACE OF ORIGIN, CITIZENSHIP

10In 2010, with the approval of City Council, the respondent sold a number of units to an aboriginal housing organization. The applicant believes that about three hundred units were sold. He reasons that as a result of the sale, his wait on the waiting list will be longer because three hundred units are no longer available to those on the waiting list. Since the sale benefited people in the aboriginal community, the applicant alleges discrimination because as a white male, he did not benefit from the sale and because he may have to wait longer before his name comes up on the waiting list.

11The applicant agrees that under provincial law the respondent is required to replace all social housing units that are sold. However, he notes that this might take some time.

12In my view, there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant could show that the decision to sell housing units to an aboriginal housing organization resulted in discrimination. The decision was a business decision regarding the assets of the respondent. While the effect of the decision may be that the number of units available to people on the waiting list was temporarily reduced, the applicant was not treated any differently than anyone else on the list as a result. Since there is no reasonable prospect that this aspect of the Application could succeed, I conclude that this aspect of the Application must be dismissed.

OTHER GROUNDS

13The Application indicated that the applicant also alleges discrimination on the grounds of disability. At the summary hearing, he indicated that this is in relation to his need for housing at ground level. However, he did not explain why he feels that he has experienced discrimination because of this.

14The applicant suggested that he has generally experienced discrimination because he is currently homeless. However, the respondent advised that in fact, this places the applicant in a higher priority category. The respondent suggested that the applicant should maintain contact with the social services agency that assisted him with his application to be on the waiting list and that he ask for assistance in having his application backdated.

15The applicant also outlined complaints about the administration of the respondent’s organization. For example, he believes that there are too often units that could be filled that are not filled. However, he did not identify how this results in discrimination on a Code-protected ground.

DECISION

16Having considered the Application and the applicant’s submissions at the summary hearing, I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed, and the Application is dismissed on that basis.