Richards v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2010 HRTO 2454

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Althea Richards Applicant

-and-

Toronto Community Housing Corporation and Lina Raso Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: December 10, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2454 Indexed as: Richards v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation

APPEARANCES BY

Althea Richards, Self-represented Applicant

Toronto Community Housing Corporation and Lina Raso, Respondents Gordon Steinberg, Representative

1This is an Application filed on June 25, 2009 under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application identifies the applicant as being Black, of Jamaican origin, as having several medical conditions and as being an older, religious, single mother. The Application alleges discrimination in housing on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, disability, creed, family status, marital status and age.

2The Application alleges that the repondents failed to provide her with a revised lease in a timely fashion and provided information about the applicant’s income to the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) with the result that the ODSP delayed the issuing of the applicant’s May 31, 2009 income support payment. The Application describes the respondents’ involvement with the ODSP as a conspiracy and that the respondents later attempted to cover up this conspiracy when they backdated the applicant’s revised lease.

3On September 16, 2010 the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction granting a request by the respondents for a summary hearing. The summary hearing process is described in Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The issue in a summary hearing is whether the 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.

4A summary hearing was held by telephone conference call on December 6, 2010 during which I heard from the applicant and the representative of the respondents. The following account of events is based on the information provided by the parties during the telephone conference call as well as information contained in the Application, Response and Reply.

5The applicant is a tenant of the organisational respondent, the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (“TCHC”). She moved into her present unit in September 2008. The applicant was intending to live with an adult daughter and the two of them signed a lease on August 21, 2008 as co-tenants. The rent for the applicant’s unit was calculated based on the family composition and income. The applicant subsequently reported to TCHC that her daughter had not moved in which necessitated a recalculation of the rent and an issuing of a new lease. On May 1, 2009 Lina Raso, the personal respondent and a Tenant Services Co-ordinator for TCHC wrote to the applicant to tell her that her rent would be reduced as of May 1, 2009. Importantly, the applicant contends that TCHC only changed her rent after she complained and that this complaint is what gave rise to TCHC’s decision to enter into a conspiracy against her.

6The applicant stated that she took TCHC’s May 1, 2009 letter indicating her rent had been reduced to ODSP in order to have her ODSP income support payment adjusted. The applicant stated that ODSP told her that she would have to provide them with a copy of her lease in order to provide suitable evidence of her rent. The applicant stated that she did not have at the time a revised version of her lease showing her new rent. She stated that TCHC subsequently told her that the ODSP could contact TCHC to confirm the applicant’s rent. According to the applicant when her ODSP worker talked to a TCHC staff person he was told that the applicant had previously received accident benefits income. The applicant stated this was news to the ODSP worker who had been unaware of this income although the applicant stated that she had already provided information about her accident benefits income to ODSP but to a different ODSP office.

7The applicant stated that this divulged information led the ODSP to investigate the applicant’s past income and to determine that the applicant’s ODSP income support payment should be reduced. A letter from the ODSP to the applicant dated May 25, 2009 was before me stating that ODSP had been overpaying the applicant and that as a result her income support payments would be reduced as of June 1, 2010.

8The Application states that this investigation resulted in a delay in the issuing of the applicant’s May 31, 2010 income support payment. The Application states that as a consequence the applicant went to ODSP on June 1, 2009 at which time she was able to negotiate the release of her June income support payment. The Application contends that the delay in issuing of her income support payment made it difficult for the applicant to pay her bills and made her feel insecure.

9The applicant went on to state that when she went to TCHC in early June to pick up her revised lease the personal respondent suggested that the lease should be backdated to May 15, 2009 because the May 1, 2009 letter to the applicant indicated that her rent would be changed as of May 1, 2009. The applicant stated she did not believe this, that she believed the backdating of the lease was part of the conspiracy between the TCHC and ODSP. It appears the applicant was contending that by backdating the lease the TCHC was trying to disguise the fact that there may have been a telephone conversation after May 15 between the ODSP and the TCHC during which the TDSB shared information about the applicant’s accident benefits income.

10The applicant was asked to explain why she felt the TCHC’s actions may have violated the Code. The applicant stated that the TCHC’s actions namely to share information about her and to backdate her lease were part of a conspiracy and conspiracy is a form of discrimination. She stated that one does not see White persons having to fight for cheques, that it only happens to Black persons. She suggested that the TCHC is involved in a conspiracy against all Black persons. The applicant also indicated that the respondent knew her to be a religious person and suggested that this may have been a motivation for the repondents’ actions.

11The respondents denied treating the applicant in a discriminatory manner. They stated that the applicant’s rent was reduced in accordance with the provisons of the Social Housing Reform Act 2000 after she reported information about her income and household compostion on or about April 30, 2009 and that this reduction came into effect the following month, May 2009. They denied that any other alleged actions were discriminatory. They stated that if a TDSB staff person did share information about the applicant’s income with ODSP such information sharing is allowed. They stated that they would have no ivnvolvement in any ODSP’s subsequent decisions or actions to recalculate the applicant’s ODSP benefits which may have given rise to a delay in the issuing of the applicant’s income payment.

ANALYSIS

12In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, at paras. 8-9, the Tribunal made the following observations on the type of inquiry that may be involved in a summary hearing:

In some cases, the issue at the summary hearing may be whether, assuming all the allegations in the application to be true, it has a reasonable prospect of success. In these cases, the focus will generally be on the legal analysis and whether what the applicant alleges may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation.

In other cases, the focus of the summary hearing may be on whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated. Often, such cases will deal with whether the applicant can show a link between an event and the grounds upon which he or she makes the claim. The issue will be whether there is a reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to him or her can show a link between the event and the alleged prohibited ground.

The present case falls into the second category, whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that there has been a violation of the Code.

13I find the applicant’s bald assertion that there was a conspiracy to discriminate against her, primarily, it appears, because she is Black, does not provide a sufficiently coherent or plausible account of events that could reasonably lead to her Application succeeding. The applicant’s view of the case would appear to require that the Tribunal find, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondents conspired with ODSP because they were not happy that the applicant had complained about her rent and successfully had the rent reduced.

14The applicant’s central allegation is that the respondents then, as some sort of retaliatory measure, passed information to the ODSP about the applicant’s past income. The alleged conspiracy appears to be that TCHC knew ODSP would investigate the applicant’s past income and thus TCHC should be held accountable for the delay in the applicant receiving her May 31, 2009 income support cheque from ODSP. This view of the case further requires the Tribunal to find that the respondents actions were not only motivated by the respondents not being happy about the applicant’s complaint about her rent but that their actions were related to the applicant’s race, creed or one of the other grounds identified by the applicant.

15When specifically asked why the applicant believed that the respondents actions violated the Code she suggested that Blacks rather than Whites had their cheques reviewed and that the TCHC conspired against all Black people. The applicant provided no explanation or evidence as to why she believed this to be the case. In my view the applicant could not, on a balance of probabilities link the respondents’ alleged conspiratorial actions to a violation of the Code. The applicant’s further suggestion that the respondents backdated her revised lease to a date in May (which is the month her new rent took effect) because they were trying to cover their tracks also appears to be an allegation that would be difficult, on a balance of probabilities, to prove and to link to a ground covered by the Code.

16It is clear that the applicant feels aggrieved about events that happened. She believes she was not fairly treated by a process that involved her rent being reviewed, her ODSP income support payment being reduced and her income support payment for June 2009 being delayed. However, I cannot see how this Application has a reasonable prospect of succeeding given the information before me and the applicant’s theory of the case. Consequently, this Application is dismissed.