Sharon Weekes v. Mariposa Co-operative Homes Inc. and the Regional Municipality of Halton, 2011 HRTO 1169

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sharon Weekes

Applicant

-and-

Mariposa Co-operative Homes Inc. and the Regional Municipality of Halton

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: June 15, 2011

Indexed as: 2011 HRTO 1169

APPEARANCES

Sharon Weekes, Applicant ) Richard Parker, Counsel

Mariposa Co-operative Homes, Respondent ) Charles Sinclair, Counsel

Halton (Region), Respondent ) Edward Millward, Counsel

1The applicant, Sharon Weekes, filed this Application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, disability, family status and receipt of public assistance, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”).

2With respect to both respondents, the applicant alleged that she had been discriminated against when she was advised she was “over-housed.” In May 2002, the provisions in O.Reg. 298/01 to the Social Housing Reform Act 2000, c.27, came into effect in the Regional Municipality of Halton (“Halton”).

3Leading up to the legislative changes, Mariposa Co-operative Inc. (“the Co-op”) was required to advise Halton if any of its members in receipt of rent-geared-to-income (“RGI”) assistance were occupying a unit that was larger than that which they were deemed eligible. Under the regulations, the applicant, who at the time was occupying her three-bedroom unit with her son, was deemed to be over-housed because the largest unit for which they were eligible under the regulations was a two-bedroom unit.

4The Co-op advised the applicant of this fact in May 2001. As it only had three-bedroom units, the applicant was not eligible for an internal transfer. In order to remain eligible for RGI assistance, she had to fill out an application for a transfer within Halton to an appropriately sized unit, and fill out an annual application updating her information (until such time as Halton is able to find suitable accommodation, the applicant is entitled to remain in her current unit).

5The applicant alleged that the Co-op was harassing her by telling her she was over-housed, and that Halton was harassing her by requiring her to co-operate with the transfer process. When, at the hearing scheduled in this matter, I asked her on what ground she was being harassed, the applicant was only able to answer “humanitarian grounds” conceding that the Code was not violated. I advised the parties I was dismissing the Application as against Halton and as against the Co-op on this allegation.

6Following that, Halton was excused as this was the only basis on which it had been named as a respondent. The applicant and her counsel then engaged in brief discussions with the Co-op and its counsel, and announced she was withdrawing the remaining allegations on consent.

7The Application is dismissed in part and the remainder is withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.