HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Raphleta Taylor
Applicant
-and-
Shakil Mallick and Mirza Imran Baig
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Eric Whist
Indexed as: Taylor v. Mallick
APPEARANCES
Raphleta Taylor, Applicant ) Self-represented
Mirza Imran Baig, Respondent ) Self-represented
1This Application, filed 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 receipt of public assistance contrary to section 2 of the Code.
2On February 3, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) the Application on the basis that the Application did not appear to identify any specific incidents of discrimination committed by the respondents that were within the meaning of the Code. The applicant provided submissions in response to this NOID. In an Interim Decision dated March 12, 2010, 2010 HRTO 535, the Tribunal determined that it was not plain and obvious that the Application fell outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Interim Decision also noted that the applicant’s submissions alleged that the respondents discriminated against her because she was a “black, single, Christian woman” and indicated that the applicant’s submissions should be treated as an amendment to the Application.
3On November 24, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction which determined that a summary hearing would be held to consider the Application. 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.
4On February 16, 2011, a summary hearing was held by telephone conference call with the applicant and one of the respondents, Mr. Baig, participating. Mr. Baig indicated that he was participating on behalf of the respondents and that the respondents’ counsel would not be attending.
5The applicant was a tenant in a basement rental unit in a house owned by Mr. Mallick. Mr. Baig managed this property for Mr. Mallick. The applicant was a tenant in this basement unit from April 2008 to November 24, 2009, at which time she was evicted for the non-payment of rent. It appears there were two other units being rented in the house for most of the period the applicant was living there. Neither Mr. Mallick nor Mr. Baig lived on site.
6The applicant alleges that she was subjected to ongoing discrimination and harassment while she occupied her rental unit. Her Application lists 24 specific incidents or events of alleged discrimination or harassment, many of which relate to actions the respondents allegedly took after entering the applicant’s unit illegally.
7The Application alleges that a number of her personal possessions were stolen from her unit including food, toothpaste, washing soap, a handkerchief, a food bank card, a library card, and newspapers. The Application alleges that items in the applicant’s unit were tampered with or damaged, including deodorant, personal belongings, the refrigerator, the fuse box, a heater, and a DVD player. The Application alleges that the applicant was subject to other types of harassing behaviours, including having substances placed in her food, her telephone conversations monitored, her telephone and mail services interrupted, her heat and hot water turned off, having garbage placed outside her unit, having upstairs tenants follow or disturb her movements and having substances dispensed into her unit while she slept.
8At the hearing, the applicant described some of these incidents in greater detail and referred to other incidents of alleged harassment. She alleged, for example, that she would return to her unit to find that her radio had been turned on or the volume altered or the radio station changed. She alleged that the respondents had put blood in the light fixtures. She alleged that the respondents had deliberately cut a water pipe in order to flood her unit. The applicant stated that she suspected that someone was taking pictures of her by means of a “camera system” given certain electrical wires that she discovered.
9The applicant also described her efforts to respond to these alleged incidents, which included making repeated calls to the Peel Regional Police (I had two police occurrence reports before me), complaining to the City of Mississauga and filing complaints with the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”) (I had both a complaint to the LTB and an LTB decision before me). It appears that the applicant chose to stop paying portions of her rent based on the belief that she was being unfairly treated and consequently she fell behind in her rent. The applicant was later evicted for both failing to pay her rent arrears and her rent for October 2009.
10The applicant stated that, when she was renting the basement unit at Mr. Mallick’s home, she believed that it was Mr. Baig or Mr. Mallick who were responsible for the intrusions into her apartment and the harassing behaviour. She also believed that they had someone else make noise during the night in the unit above her in order to deliberately disturb her. She noted that Mr. Baig had keys to her unit and had duplicate keys that he may have shared with others.
11In her written submissions, the applicant argues that these incidents of harassment or discrimination were because she is a Black, single, Christian female. She alleges that the respondents presumed that she was uneducated and foolish, and that they were preying on her as an innocent immigrant. The applicant also indicated that Mr. Baig told her that he could have rented her unit to a White person for more money. She stated that, during their first meeting, Mr. Baig went out of his way to tell her that he had also assisted another Black woman. As I understood, the applicant was suggesting that Mr. Baig was a person who was prepared to act on the basis of racial considerations.
12The applicant also indicated that she believed that the putting of blood into the light fixtures was done because the respondents knew this would offend the applicant who is Christian and for whom blood has a significant religious meaning. The applicant did not make any allegations of discriminatory treatment specifically related to her sex or marital status. She also did not allege at the hearing that she was discriminated against on the basis of being in receipt of public assistance.
13Mr. Baig denied that the respondents had discriminated against or harassed the applicant on any grounds. He indicated that his interest was to successfully manage Mr. Mallick’s property and as such had no interest in either harassing the applicant or damaging the property as was alleged. He stated that he never entered the applicant’s home without providing proper notice as he was required to do. He indicated that the two other tenants who had been in the building for three years and four years, respectively, had never made complaints about the respondents.
14Mr. Baig indicated that he tried to respond to the applicant’s concerns. He stated that, when the applicant complained about garbage accumulating outside her unit, he removed it and when the applicant complained that someone upstairs was shadowing her movements, he showed her that the unit above her was no longer occupied. He stated that he did not attempt to force the applicant out of her unit citing the fact that when the house was for sale, he arranged for a meeting between a prospective buyer and the applicant in order for the prospective buyer to consider keeping the applicant on as a tenant. Mr. Baig stated that this perspective buyer ended up purchasing the house after agreeing that he would keep the applicant as a tenant. This was prior to the eviction proceedings in October and November 2009.
15Mr. Baig denied that he made any comment about being able to collect more rent from a White tenant. Mr. Baig stated that the applicant was a tenant who was difficult to deal with but was of the opinion that the issues of alleged discrimination and harassment she raised were not real but rather figments of her imagination.
ANALYSIS
16Rules 19A.1 of the Tribunal’s Rule of Procedure states:
19A.1 The Tribunal may hold a summary hearing, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, on the question of whether an 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.
17In 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.
18The 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. In this case the relevant sections of the Code are 2(1) and 2(2) which state:
Accommodation
2.(1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because 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.
Harassment in accommodation
2(2) Every person who occupies accommodation has a right to freedom from harassment by the landlord or agent of the landlord or by an occupant of the same building because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance.
19I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant can show, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondents carried out the actions alleged by the applicant and this is sufficient for me conclude that her Application should be dismissed.
20The applicant has asserted that the respondents repeatedly harassed her by taking numerous small personal items from her apartment and deliberately tampering with other items. She has suggested that the respondents would, for example, change the volume on the applicant’s radio, take her library card, tamper with her food and deliberately cut a pipe in order to flood the applicant’s apartment in order to harass the applicant. I find it highly improbable that the respondents would undertake these types of intrusive actions; that the respondents would enter the applicant’s unit in order to, for example, adjust the applicant’s radio or that they would deliberately cut pipes to flood the applicant’s unit given that this would have damaged Mr. Mallick’s own property. I do not see how the applicant will be able to establish before the Tribunal that, on a balance or probabilities, the respondents carried out these actions.
21The applicant has no independent evidence to support her allegations. The relevant police report that the applicant filed simply indicates that the applicant made complaints that people had been entering her apartment, but there is nothing in this report to support that these intrusions had actually occurred. The applicant acknowledged that when she went to the LTB to complain that the respondents had repeatedly entered her apartment, raising the same allegations as are in her Application, the LTB dismissed her complaint even though the respondents were not present to respond.
22I do not find there is any reasonable prospect that the applicant can show, on a balance of probabilities, that she was harassed, as described, given the highly improbable nature of her allegations. The respondents did take the applicant to the LTB and had her evicted, which demonstrated that they no longer wanted her as a tenant. However, they provided a persuasive reason for the eviction - the applicant was in rent arrears and had failed to pay her October 2009 rent. This was not in dispute.
23I further note Mr. Baig’s account of how he arranged a meeting between the applicant and a prospective buyer of the house (sometime prior to October 2009), which would have allowed the applicant to continue to live in the house, and his efforts to address the applicant’s concerns by, for example, taking her upstairs to view an empty apartment in order to allay her anxiety that she was under some sort of surveillance. These actions do not seem consistent with the applicant’s contention that the respondents were involved in an orchestrated effort to harass her.
24Given that I am of the view that the applicant would not be able to show, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondents harassed in the manner alleged, I do not need to make the further determination as to whether these activities are related to the applicant’s race, colour, gender, creed or the receipt of public assistance. That being said, I am of the further view that the applicant would not be able to show that these alleged actions were, on a balance of probabilities, related to her race, colour, gender or creed or the receipt of public assistance. I find that the allegation that the respondents put blood in a light fixture in order to offend the applicant’s religious beliefs highly improbable. I also find that the applicant has provided no clear rationale for why she believes that the respondents wanted to rent to someone who was naïve and uneducated, and why the respondents believed she was such a person because she was a Black, single, Christian female.
25The applicant stated that Mr. Baig referred to having helped another Black tenant and that he could have rented the applicant’s unit to a White tenant for more money, which Mr. Baig categorically denied. I am of the view that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant will be able to establish that Mr. Baig made these comments given the overall, improbable nature of the applicant’s account of events and the assistance that Mr. Baig appears to have provided the applicant.
26I have considered the applicant’s submissions carefully including her references to case law. However, in my view, there is no reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to her will establish that the respondents acted in the way she alleges and will show that these actions were tainted with a discriminatory consideration. 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.
27Consequently, this Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of February, 2011.
“Signed by”
Eric Whist
Vice-chair