Alexander Antropov v. 650 Parliament Residences Ltd., 2010 HRTO 328

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alexander Antropov

Applicant

-and-

650 Parliament Residences Ltd., Douglas Sartell and Zorica Karanovic

Respondents

CASE RESOLUTION CONFERENCE DECISION

Adjudicator: Dale Hewat

Date: February 11, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 328

Indexed as: Antropov v. 650 Parliament Residences

APPEARANCES BY

Alexander Antropov, Applicant ) On his own behalf

650 Parliament Residences Ltd., ) Sheldon Weinles, Douglas Sartell and Zorica Karanovic, ) Counsel Respondents )

1This is an Application filed December 30, 2008 under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The underlying human rights complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on January 9, 2006 and abandoned upon filing this Application with the Tribunal.

2The applicant, who self-identifies as a Russian immigrant, alleges he was discriminated on the basis of ethnic origin and place of origin and suffered a reprisal under the Code with respect to his rental accommodation. The applicant alleges that he was treated differently from other non-Russian tenants because he claims he was offered the worst apartment in the building in terms of its location, noise levels and pollutants from pigeon-feeding and was denied lease incentives and a free parking spot in the building. The applicant also claims that once he raised concerns to the management, he suffered reprisal by receiving multiple eviction notices.

3The Case Resolution Conference was conducted on November 12, 2009. The applicant testified on his own behalf. The personal respondents, Douglas Sartell and Zorica Karanovic testified on behalf of the corporate respondent, 650 Parliament Residences Ltd.

4The Application is dismissed. My reasons follow.

Background

5The corporate respondent owns and operates 2,646 residential rental units in several apartment complexes in Toronto, two of which are located at 650 Parliament Street and 280 Wellesley Street, also known as Wellesley Parliament Square. Each apartment complex has its own rental agency office. Wellesley Parliament Square is located in the neighbourhood of St. James Town which is home to a wide mix of new immigrants to Toronto. Many residents in Wellesley Parliament Square are new to Canada including immigrants like the applicant from Russia.

The Lease

6After emigrating from Russia and living in the United States for five years, the applicant moved to Toronto in the summer of 2005. The applicant saw an advertisement for apartments for rent at Wellesley Parliament Square and attended at the rental agency office for 280 Wellesley Street in search of a bachelor apartment for rent. The advertisement led the applicant to believe that rental incentives, such as a free television, microwave and a free parking spot, were offered for units at Wellesley Parliament Square.

7The applicant was told by the rental agent that there was no bachelor unit available at the time for 280 Wellesley Street. The applicant testified, however, that he believed other people, who were not Russian were offered units in that building.

8On his own accord, the applicant later attended at the rental office located at 650 Parliament and was shown a bachelor apartment by the rental agent, Zorica Karanovic. The applicant agreed to rent the unit and signed a standard one-year lease commencing October 1, 2005 at a rate of $680.00 per month. The applicant was required to provide two cheques for first and last month’s rent. At the time of signing the lease, the applicant did not own a car. Therefore, costs for parking or other charges were noted as “not applicable” on the lease document. The applicant also signed a Key and Parking Acknowledgment document to confirm that he was given a key to the lobby and his apartment unit but the Parking Space number and Licence number section of that document were left blank.

Lease Incentives and Parking Space

9At the time he signed the lease, the applicant did not discuss any lease incentives for the unit with Ms. Karanovic. He testified that he thought that, since 650 Parliament and 280 Wellesley were the same company, any incentives that were available for 280 Wellesley also applied to 650 Parliament.

10On October 5, 2005, the applicant contacted Mr. Sartell stating that he had been denied a parking spot and other incentives by Ms. Karanovic when he signed the lease. On October 7, 2005, Mr. Sartell responded in a letter to the applicant advising that a free parking space was offered as part of the lease negotiations but that incentives, which may have been mentioned regarding lease inquiries at 280 Wellesley, were not offered for apartment units at 650 Parliament, which had been the case for one year.

11The applicant maintains that the respondents discriminated against him by not providing him with the use of the free parking space which was readily provided to other tenants. While admitting that he did not own a car, the applicant claimed that he wanted use of the parking space for his tutoring students, although he never mentioned this need to the respondents.

12Mr. Sartell testified that a free parking spot is included in the lease but according to corporation’s safety and security policy the parking spaces are exclusively for tenant use. Mr. Sartell further stated that, although 650 Parliament does not contain sufficient parking spaces for all of the tenants, had the applicant advised that he had a car, a parking space would have been provided to the applicant if it was available.

13It is also important to note that the applicant’s desire for the use of a parking space was the subject of an application that he filed against the corporate respondent with the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal (“ORHT”) on September 29, 2006. In that application the applicant alleged that the corporate respondent never provided a parking space, access to or use of the fitness centre as a rental incentive agreed to before the tenancy commenced. No mention of discrimination was raised in the application before the ORHT. The ORHT application was dismissed on December 21, 2006.

14Notwithstanding the ORHT decision and the lack of any notion of an alleged human rights infringement in that case, I cannot find any basis to conclude that the respondents discriminated against the applicant with respect to the use of a parking space. The requirements needed to obtain a parking space were a licence number and a car, neither of which the applicant had. There was no evidence that any other tenants were treated differently from the applicant and in fact the evidence confirmed that, subject to availability, the applicant would have been provided a parking space for a car if he had one. The respondents were also not notified about the applicant’s wish to have use of a parking space for tutoring students but even if they had been notified, the corporate safety and security policy for tenant parking would prevail in these circumstances.

Eviction Notices

15On October 10, 2005, the applicant received his first eviction notice on the standard ORHT Form N4 Notice to Terminate Early for Non payment of Rent. The period of non-payment noted on the eviction notice was for the month of October 2005, being the applicant’s first month’s rent. The applicant received two other eviction notices, in November and December 2005, with respect to the non-payment of first month’s rent.

16In the applicant’s complaint, he asserted that the eviction notices were groundless in response to his discrimination complaint which constitutes reprisal, harassment and intimidation. When questioned during the Case Resolution Conference, the applicant could not produce evidence of a human rights complaint filed before January 2006 and the respondents confirmed through the testimony of Mr. Sartell that he and the corporate respondent only became aware of a human rights complaint well after it was filed on January 9, 2006.

17What was clear, based on all of the testimony, was that the initial rent cheque for the month of October 2005 was missing information on it and therefore it could not processed. It was undisputed that once a rent cheque is missing or cannot be processed, a Form N4 eviction notice is automatically issued by the corporate respondent’s accounting department. In fact, it was noted that thousands of Form N4 eviction notices are generated each year and delivered to tenants and that the issuing of the notices is mandatory solely on the basis of non-payment of rent.

18In the applicant’s case, once the problem with the first cheque was identified in mid-December 2005, the eviction notices were removed and the applicant’s first month’s rent was credited to him. This was confirmed in a letter to the applicant by Wellesley Parliament Square’s accounting department on December 14, 2005.

19The applicant received another eviction notice on January 4, 2006 for non-payment of rent due January 1, 2006. As it turned out, the applicant’s January rent cheque was not received until January 5, 2006 and, once received, the eviction notice was removed. The applicant continued to live in the apartment for the duration of the lease without any further eviction notices.

20I do not find any discrimination either on the basis of ethnic origin, place of origin or reprisal with respect to the eviction notices received by the applicant. First, it was established that the eviction notices were automatically generated as soon as the first month’s rent cheque was deficient. As part of the corporate respondent’s accounting function, the applicant was issued eviction notices like any other tenant whose rent cheque lacked correct information or was late. There was no evidence the respondents were aware of a human rights complaint in October 2005 or even that a complaint was raised in October 2005. As well, once the mix-up with the applicant’s first month’s rent cheque was resolved, his account was credited and he received a letter on December 14, 2005 from the accounting department clarifying and confirming that his rental payments were up to-date. The January 2006 eviction notice was also sent automatically due to the applicant’s late January payment and had nothing to do with discrimination or reprisal by any of the respondents.

Bachelor Apartment

21Finally, the applicant claims that he was discriminated against because he is Russian by being offered the “worst” bachelor apartment at 650 Parliament. He also stated that he believes he was not offered an apartment when he first visited 280 Wellesley due to his Russian origin. The applicant also claimed that the apartment that he rented was in an extremely noisy location and that he was disturbed by people feeding pigeons by his window. The applicant stated that his concerns about the noise and the pigeon feeding were ignored and not stopped by the respondents because of his Russian background. The applicant also complained to the City of Toronto about the excessive noise levels. The City did come to inspect the noise levels affecting his apartment and found the levels to fall within acceptable limits. Nevertheless, the applicant wrote to the corporate respondent on December 14, 2005 seeking early termination of his lease on the basis of unacceptable noise levels and because of the flock of pigeons being fed daily by other tenants. The applicant questioned why other landlords prohibit pigeon feeding whereas the 650 Parliament does nothing to prevent the problem.

22There is also no basis for a finding of discrimination regarding the applicant’s concerns over the apartment he rented, its location, noise levels or concerns about pigeons. The respondents’ evidence established that the reason why the applicant was offered a bachelor apartment at 650 Parliament was due to the fact that there are many more bachelor apartment units in 650 Parliament versus 280 Wellesley. Based on the number of bachelor units, it only made sense that there were not any bachelor units available at 280 Wellesley when the applicant was searching for an apartment to rent. There was no evidence to support the applicant’s allegation that other non-Russians were offered a bachelor apartment at 280 Wellesley when the applicant attended at that rental agency office. In addition, based on the applicant’s December 14, 2005 letter requesting early termination, it is clear that he was not happy with the noise or the pigeons but he did not raise any concern or allegation pertaining to a violation of the Code. He simply wanted to end his lease due to extraneous noise. There was also no evidence to support the applicant’s claims that the respondents allowed or encouraged other non-Russian tenants to feed pigeons outside the applicant’s apartment.

23For all of the reasons noted above, the Application is therefore dismissed.