Chiarina Hobart v. Renfrew County Housing Corporation, 2010 HRTO 945

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Chiarina Hobart

Applicant

-and-

Renfrew County Housing Corporation

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: April 29, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 945

Indexed as: Hobart v. Renfrew County Housing

1The applicant has filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”). A hearing has been scheduled for May 13, 2010. This Interim Decision determines whether to allow the applicant to amend the Application.

BACKGROUND

2The applicant alleges that the respondent, a social housing provider, discriminated against her in housing on the basis of citizenship and receipt of public assistance when the respondent refused to process her application for housing at a time when she was homeless and without current identification.

3On April 8, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction, advising the parties that a conference call hearing was required in order to address a number of preliminary issues.

4On a conference call held April 23, 2010, the parties agreed to the removal of receipt of public assistance as a ground. The respondent refused to consent to amending the Application to allege discrimination on the basis of place of origin rather than citizenship.

DECISION

5The applicant’s request to amend the Application to remove the ground of receipt of public assistance is granted.

6I also grant the request to amend the Application to replace citizenship with place of origin for the following reasons.

7In her narrative the applicant described her experience of discrimination as follows:

I feel my citizenship is being discriminated against as the policies that Renfrew County Housing Corporation have in place, are unwilling to accept an expired Canadian Passport as proof of identity when the only difference between an expired Canadian passport and up-to-date passport is the date on it. Their policies only allow a person born in Canada to apply and qualify immediately. My special circumstance disqualified me from this timely placement. While others are accepted and get placed on a waiting list and all they require is proof that they made an application for the birth certificate in the province they were born in.

The fact that I was born in another country is why I am being discriminated against, because I am losing valuable waiting time since Renfrew County Housing Corporation wants extra proof that I have not denounced my citizenship and they do not require a person born in this country for proof that they did not denounce their citizenship at some point during their life and to make it clear, I never denounced my citizenship and have always lived here.

8On the conference call the applicant explained that the respondent’s seemingly neutral requirement that a housing applicant provide proof of being legally in Canada has an adverse effect or disparate impact on people not born in Canada because it takes them longer to get such proof. The applicant argued that if she had been born in Canada instead of Italy, and no longer possessed valid identification, then she could have more quickly provided documentation that she was legally in Canada, and she would have been placed on the respondent's waiting list for housing sooner.

9The respondent opposed the amendment relying on Odell v. Toronto Transit Commission, [2001] O.H.R.B.I.D. No. 2. The respondent argued place of origin does not flow from the original Application. I disagree. The narrative makes quite clear that the applicant intends to argue that the fact she was not born in Canada delayed accessing the respondent's housing because of the respondent's policy with respect to required identification.

10The respondent also argued that it would be prejudiced by an amendment at this late date, after it has prepared and filed its Response and documents in preparation for the hearing.

11The Tribunal has permitted amendments to section 34 applications after taking into account the stage at which the request to amend is made, the nature of the amendment and the absence of any apparent prejudice. See Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336 and Wozeilek v. 7-Eleven Canada, 2009 HRTO 926. I find that any prejudice to the respondent may be remedied by giving the respondent the opportunity to amend its Response and to file with the Tribunal and serve on the applicant any additional documents or amendments to the respondent's summaries of what its witnesses will say. The respondent may file with the Tribunal and serve on the applicant any of the above by May 7, 2010.