Karine Tyrrell v. Lake Promenade Apartments Limited, 2011 HRTO 1255

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Karine Tyrrell

Applicant

-and-

Lake Promenade Apartments Limited, Anita Greenberg and Jack Greenberg

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: June 30, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1255

Indexed as: Tyrrell v. Lake Promenade Apartments Limited

APPEARANCES

Karine Tyrrell, Applicant ) Self-Represented

Lake Promenade Apartments ) Limited, Anita Greenberg and ) Jack Greenberg, Counsel Jack Greenberg, Respondents )

1This Application, filed on March 24, 2010, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination in housing on the basis of sex, age and reprisal contrary to section 2 of the Code.

2The applicant was a tenant of Lake Promenade Apartments Limited from July 2007 to November 2009. The apartment building is owned and managed by the personal respondents Jack and Anita Greenberg. All of the respondents are referred to in this Decision collectively as the “Landlord”.

3Throughout her tenancy, the applicant had problems with other tenants in the apartment building. In October 2007, the applicant testified at the eviction hearing of the tenants in the apartment adjacent to hers. The tenants were evicted. The applicant claims that after assisting the Landlord with this eviction, she developed a negative reputation in the building as the person who got other tenants evicted.

4In January 2008, new tenants moved into the apartment adjacent to the applicant’s apartment. The applicant made a noise complaint about the tenants in the adjacent apartment and the Landlord issued a Notice of Eviction. The applicant’s neighbours responded to the Notice of Eviction by complaining about the applicant in a letter to the Landlord dated April 13, 2008. The neighbours stated the applicant screamed at them, knocked on their wall during the middle of the night and constantly complained about other tenants. In the response, the neighbours indicated that they had spoken to the superintendent about the problems they were experiencing with the applicant and he said, “do not pay attention as she is just ill old lady”.

5The conflict between the applicant and her neighbours abated for a significant period of time. From April 2008 until June 2009, there were no issues between them.

6In September 2009, the applicant again complained about loud music coming from the neighbouring apartment. Her neighbours, in turn, complained about noise coming from the applicant’s apartment. The noise complaint related to a sound machine that the applicant had been using to mask the noise coming from her neighbours’ apartment.

7In early October 2009, there were numerous complaints by other tenants in the apartment building about the applicant. The complaints related to the applicant: playing loud music; disturbing other tenants by screaming at them; making unfounded complaints against them; and generally interfering with their reasonable enjoyment of the premises. In one of the letters of complaint, a tenant claimed people in the building called the applicant a “crazy lady”. The same tenant referred to the applicant as a “delusional person”. This tenant is not a named respondent in the Application.

8Although the evidence is clear that negative comments were made about the applicant by her fellow tenants, there is no evidence that the Landlord made disparaging comments about the applicant or that the disparaging comments were relied upon by the Landlord when dealing with the applicant.

9On October 6, 2009, the applicant gave notice to the Landlord that she was vacating her apartment because of the noise. The applicant testified before the Tribunal that the music in the adjacent apartment was so loud that she had to leave her apartment. The applicant stayed in a hotel during the week and with her mother on the weekends. While she was away, the police were called because of a noise complaint relating to the applicant’s apartment. The applicant had left her sound machine on during her absence. The applicant claims the police report was discriminatory because it refers to her as “elderly”.

10The applicant vacated her apartment on November 30, 2009.

11The applicant’s central complaint in this proceeding is that other tenants talked about her in unacceptable terms and a culture was created where tenants were encouraged to make complaints about each other. She believes the Landlord failed to address this culture because it was more important to have the building at full occupancy than it was to maintain an atmosphere of civility between tenants.

12The applicant’s final complaint is that the Landlord refused to return her security deposit when she vacated her apartment.

13The Landlord argues the applicant’s complaints should have been brought to the Landlord and Tenant Board because they are landlord and tenant matters and not issues of discrimination. The Landlord believes the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s complaints. In the alternative, the Landlord argues the applicant failed to prove discrimination because none of the disparaging comments were made by the Landlord. The Landlord argues the only comment that can be attributed to the Landlord is the comment by the superintendent in April 2008. The Landlord submits this comment is out of time and in any event, there is no evidence the comment was made by the superintendent because it was an attribution by a third party.

ANALYSIS

14The Tribunal’s authority is based on the Code, which, among other things, prohibits discrimination and harassment with respect to housing on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to inquire into complaints which are not based on prohibited grounds in the Code.

15The applicant asserts comments were made about her during her tenancy which she found offensive. The first comment – that the applicant is “an ill old lady” – was allegedly made by the Landlord’s superintendent. This comment was attributed to the superintendent by a third party. Even if this comment was made by the superintendent, the applicant’s complaint is out of time because the comment was made in April 2008, almost two years before the Application was filed. Under subsection 34(1)(a) of the Code, applications must be filed within one year of the alleged discriminatory conduct.

16The remaining comments which the applicant finds offensive were made by individuals who are not parties to the Application. The tenant who described the applicant as a “crazy lady” and “delusional” was not named as a respondent in the Application. Similarly, the description of the applicant as “elderly” was made by the police.

17In addition, none of the disparaging comments were made to the applicant. She discovered these comments during the disclosure process for this hearing. There is no evidence that the Landlord acted on these comments when dealing with the applicant. The applicant, on her own accord, vacated her apartment because of the noise from the adjacent apartment.

18The applicant’s complaint is, at its core, a complaint that tenants in the apartment building interfered with her quiet enjoyment of her apartment. Other tenants in the building made similar complaints about the applicant. The complaints are predominately about excessive noise on the part of the applicant and other tenants. These complaints are essentially landlord and tenant matters. The applicant’s complaint that the Landlord failed to adequately address the culture of feuding complaints between tenants in the building is not related to a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code. It concerns the Landlord’s management of the building, which is outside of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

19The applicant has failed to establish that the Landlord discriminated against her during her tenancy. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.