Karawan v. Forestwood Co-operative Homes, 2011 HRTO 645

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Radwan Karawan Applicant

-and-

Forestwood Co-operative Homes Inc. and Janet Menard Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: April 5, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 645 Indexed as: Karawan v. Forestwood Co-operative Homes

APPEARANCES

Radwan Karawan, Applicant (Self-represented)

Forestwood Co-operative Homes Inc., Respondent (Paula Boutis, Counsel)

Janet Menard, Respondent (John Gescher, Counsel and Sarah Kim, Student-at-law)

Decision

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on October 8, 2009, alleging discrimination in housing on the grounds of race, colour, disability, creed and age as a result of the calculation of his rent. He also provided information to suggest that he was alleging discrimination on the basis of being in receipt of social assistance, although he did not mark off that box on his Application form. The respondents filed separate Responses submitting that the applicant’s rent was calculated in accordance with the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 27, as amended (“the SHRA”), the by-laws of the respondent Forestwood Co-operatives Homes Inc. (“Forestwood”) and was confirmed on appeal by a Service Manager as stipulated under the SHRA.

2The respondents filed separate Requests for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) requesting that the Tribunal dismiss the Application because the issues raised do not fall within the Code and/or because the matter has already been adjudicated in whole or in part by the Service Manager as stipulated under the SHRA.

3By Case Assessment Direction dated August 6, 2010, the Tribunal directed that the matter be scheduled for a Summary Hearing pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. It stated as follows at paras. 3 and 4:

In my opinion, the most appropriate procedure, given the issues raised in the Application, is to hold a summary hearing on whether the Application has a reasonable prospect of success. I emphasize the Tribunal only has the power, under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), to determine if an applicant has experienced discrimination on the basis of one of the grounds in the Code, not to decide general claims of unfairness or allegations relating to the management of the co-operatives.

The Tribunal will schedule a half-day summary hearing by teleconference, and the applicant shall make his submissions first. The applicant shall be prepared to explain how there is a reasonable prospect that he could prove that he experienced discrimination under the Code, and indicate the evidence he would use to establish that.

4A Notice of Summary Hearing – Conference Call, dated August 10, 2010, was sent to the parties setting the date of the conference call hearing as October 20, 2010. The applicant provided additional material before the hearing, which he faxed to the Tribunal on September 26, 2010. The Summary Hearing was held by teleconference on October 20, 2010.

The Applicant’s Submissions

5At the beginning of the hearing, the applicant stated that as a result of a recent medical operation, he was not feeling well. The Tribunal asked if he was seeking an adjournment to a time when he was feeling better, but the applicant confirmed several times that he was not. Accordingly, the hearing proceeded as scheduled.

6The applicant stated that he had already provided all of his submissions and material to the Tribunal, did not want to read everything out and that doing so gave him discomfort. In his Application and other filed material, he self-identifies as being a “senior citizen, Egyptian born, Muslim, w[e]ll educated…” with a disability. He submitted medical documentation in support of various medical conditions that he has as well as receipts from his prescribed medications.

7The applicant alleges that he was discriminated against by Forestwood when “an utterly incompetent person”, whom he identified as being “a Jew”, incorrectly calculated his rent. Further, he alleges, “I’m a Muslim… Elijah Pollok (financial) is a Jew. He is [the] one who write the letters unqualified (no C.A. or C.G.A.)” and asks if there is “something wrong with that sick man. And that dolt woman in the office”. In a document titled “Prelude” and attached to his Application, the applicant writes:

The President [of Forestwood’s Board of Directors] (Romauld) notice the name (a Nazi name for the German Field Marshall of H[i]tler Romel)…. [is] playing God.

8The applicant takes issue with the amount of rent he is required to pay, asserts that it is too large a percentage of the amounts that he receives from the Government, and submits that it is unfair to him as a senior. The threat of being evicted contributed to his medical conditions such that he had to obtain further medical treatment.

9He alleges that 85% of the residents are “Polish” and that when one leaves they are replaced by another Polish person to “ensure substantial majority”. In correspondence dated September 14, 2009 addressed to his MPP that he attached to his Application, the applicant alleges, “The place is running as a ghetto yu [sic] don’t hear eng-French but Polish all over -- This despotic deviation is detestable in my Canada”.

10During the hearing, the applicant stated that the harassment he alleged in his Application was continuing as he had recently received a letter from Forestwood seeking payment for another alleged outstanding amount and that he had complained that the children of another tenant were too loud. He alleges Forestwood’s treatment towards him is harassment and a plot to have him evicted from his home.

11From the material attached to his Application, the applicant states that he raised the issue about the change in his rent calculation with the respondent Janet Menard, a Commissioner with the Region of Peel, the area in which he lives.

The Respondents’ Submissions

12The respondents, who made separate submissions and filed separate materials, were in agreement that at issue in the Application was the applicant’s disagreement with how Forestwood re-calculated his monthly rent and the arrears it required the applicant to pay.

13Both respondents pointed out in their Responses, their respective RFOPs, and during their oral submissions at the hearing that the applicant’s rent was initially based on the amount of Canada Pension Plan (“CPP”)/Ontario Disability Support Plan (“ODSP”) benefits that he received. However, in 2009, the applicant’s rent was re-calculated by Forestwood when it discovered that the applicant stopped receiving CPP/ODSP benefits in 2008 and started to receive payments from CPP/Old Age Pension/Guaranteed Income Supplement (“OAS/GIS”), which were higher than the amounts he had received from CPP/ODSP. Despite a requirement for a tenant to report any change in income to Forestwood, the applicant failed to report this change.

14When Forestwood learned about the increase in the applicant’s income, it re-calculated his monthly rent payments based upon the new information and in accordance with the SHRA. This resulted in an increase in the applicant’s monthly rent and an arrears amount, about which Forestwood advised the applicant in writing in September 2009. It also advised the applicant that if he did not pay the arrears amount, Forestwood would contemplate eviction proceedings.

15The applicant appealed the rent re-calculation to a Service Manager appointed under the SHRA, which upheld the increase in rent and amount of arrears. By January 2010, both the rent increase and the arrears amount had been paid by or on behalf of the applicant.

16The respondents submit that the allegations contained in the Application do not constitute a violation of the Code. Further, they submit that the issue of the rent recalculation and arrears amount has been appropriately dealt with by the service manager appointed under the SHRA.

DECISION

17The Application does not have a reasonable prospect of success and it is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

Summary Hearings

18Rule 19A deals with Summary Hearings. It came into effect on July 1, 2010, and reads, in part, as follows:

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.

19In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, at paras. 7-9, the Tribunal made the following observations on the type of inquiry that may be involved in a summary hearing:

A summary hearing is generally ordered at an early stage in the process. In some cases, the respondent may not have been required to provide a response. In others, the respondent may not have responded but disclosure of all arguably relevant documents and the preparation of witness statements, which generally occur following the Notice of Hearing, will not yet have happened.

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.

20Having reviewed the materials filed by the parties and hearing their submissions, I find that the applicant’s allegations of discrimination are based on unsupported assumptions. Although he alleges differential treatment on the grounds of race, colour, disability, creed and age, and appears to allege discrimination on the basis of being in receipt of social assistance, he has not provided any link between his allegations and these grounds. It appears that Forestwood calculates and re-calculates monthly rents using the financial criteria as required under the SHRA. In this case, Forestwood re-calculated and increased the applicant’s monthly rent when it discovered that the applicant’s finances had increased. Further, it determined that arrears were payable because of the applicant’s failure to report the increase in his financial situation as he was required to do so.

21The applicant’s allegations that “a Jew” without qualifications incompetently re-calculated his rent, as well as his comment about “that dolt woman in the office”, the attempt to link the president of the board’s name with a Nazi official, and his comments about the residents having Polish background are not only bald assertions which, if true, would not establish a violation of the Code, but are also offensive in and of themselves.

22The applicant merely identifies Ms. Menard as a person to whose office he complained about Forestwood’s rent re-calculation. He makes no further allegations against her. The applicant does not allege that Ms. Menard did anything that would constitute a violation of his Code rights.

23Accordingly, I find there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed as against both respondents.

24The Application is dismissed.