Rose Janes v. Murray Wright, 2012 HRTO 1621

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rose Janes

Applicant

-and-

Murray Wright

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: August 24, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1621

Indexed as: Janes v. Wright

APPEARANCES

Rose Janes, Applicant

Leslie Flemming, Counsel

Murray Wright, Respondent

Self-represented

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to the occupancy of accommodation because of receipt of social assistance.

2The hearing was held on January 16 and April 20, 2012, during which time I heard from six witnesses and the parties entered 14 exhibits into evidence. I have summarized only the evidence I considered to be relevant to the dispute. In that regard, I found the evidence of Kim Domman, who essentially provided character evidence regarding the respondent, and of Nicholas Wright and Alex Brown, who gave evidence regarding the steps taken to prepare the rental property in question, had no bearing on the outcome of the Application. Character evidence is generally inadmissible in civil proceedings, including matters before the Tribunal, and I attach no weight to Ms. Domman’s evidence, see Modi v. Paradise Fine Foods Ltd., 2005 HRTO 25. The respondent’s preparations were irrelevant to the issues in dispute and, in any event, there proved to be no dispute that the property was clean when the applicant took possession. Accordingly, I make no further reference to their evidence in this Decision. Where the parties’ evidence was in conflict, I have set out my findings of fact and my reasons for them which have been made in keeping with the principles for assessing credibility as set out in Faryna v. Chorny, 1951 CanLII 252 (BC CA), [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 (BCCA). At p. 356-357, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated:

…Opportunities for knowledge, powers of observation, judgment and memory, ability to describe clearly what he has seen and heard, as well as other factors, combine to produce what is called credibility.

The credibility of interested witnesses, particularly in cases of conflict of evidence cannot be gauged solely by the test of whether the personal demeanor of the particular witness carried conviction of the truth. The test must reasonably subject his story to an examination of its consistency with the probabilities that surround the currently existing conditions. In short, the real test of the truth of the story of the witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions (…) Again, a witness may testify to what he sincerely believes to be true, but he may be quite honestly mistaken.

Other factors for assessing credibility include the witness’s motives the witness’s relationship to the parties, the internal consistency of their evidence, and inconsistencies and contradiction in relation to other witnesses’ evidence: Cugliari v. Telefficiency Corporation, 2006 HRTO 7.

Undisputed Facts

3Some of the essential facts regarding the Application are not in dispute. In August of 2009, the applicant and respondent were connected to each other through a mutual acquaintance. The applicant was looking for rental accommodation in Baysville Ontario, in the District of Muskoka and the respondent wanted to rent his mother’s home at 11 East Road in Baysville (the “property” or the “house”) as she had recently passed away. The parties spoke on the telephone and arranged for the applicant to inspect the house on August 13, 2009. The applicant and her spouse, David Harris, did inspect the property and, finding it to their liking, agreed to rent the property. The applicant and the respondent executed an “Intent To Rent/Rental Agreement”, which the applicant provided. The monthly rent was $850.00 and the applicant was to be responsible for the cost of utilities in addition to the rent. The applicant’s move in date was August 15, 2009 and she paid the respondent $425.00 in rent for the last two weeks of August. A “last month’s rent” deposit of $850.00 was required and was paid. The parties agreed that the applicant would provide the respondent with post-dated cheques for the rent and the respondent would collect the cheques when the rent was due on September 1, 2009. In the evening of August 31, 2009, the respondent called the applicant to remind her that he would meet her at the property to collect the rent cheques.

4Some aspects of this conversation are in dispute. However, there is no dispute that the applicant acknowledged that the respondent was to pick up the cheques, but then advised the respondent not to cash the cheque for September’s rent because she did not have enough money in her bank account to cover the cheque at that time. She advised that she was waiting for funds to arrive. The respondent concluded that the source of the funds for which the applicant waited was welfare.

5Whether the parties next met on September 1 or 2, 2009 is in dispute, as are the details of that meeting. What is not in dispute is that the respondent met with the manager of social assistance for the District of Muskoka on September 1, 2009 regarding the situation and received information about how recipients of Ontario Works benefits can pay their rent, which was not to his liking. He then proceeded to the property (the exact day he went is in dispute) where he informed the applicant and Mr. Harris that he was no longer willing to rent the property to them and they would have to vacate the premises after September 30, 2009.

Evidence

Testimony of the Applicant

6The applicant testified that she, Mr. Harris and their six year old daughter were living with her mother-in-law in Baysville in August 2009. They had returned to Ontario in 2008, after living in Fort McMurray, Alberta, and had been living in her mother-in-law’s house since they returned. Living with her mother-in-law was not ideal, since they were subject to her restrictions, which included not being able to use the spare room. The applicant and her daughter shared a bedroom in the basement, while Mr. Harris slept on a mattress in the rec room.

7The applicant described the family’s income sources in August 2009 as her full time job at Home Depot, the child tax benefit and odd jobs performed by Mr. Harris, who is a mechanic, a tattooist and does small engine repair. She described Mr. Harris as being “self employed” at the time. The applicant suffered a workplace injury in Fort McMurray and required knee surgery, scheduled on August 23, 2009. The applicant expected to receive workers’ compensation benefits from the province of Alberta to replace her income, commencing in September, 2009. The applicant stated that they also received health care benefits (but not income support) from Ontario Works because Mr. Harris suffers from diabetes.

8The applicant’s evidence was that, in the circumstances, she and her family were seeking rental accommodation of their own. Accordingly, when a friend mentioned that his neighbour’s son (i.e., the respondent) might be renting, she gave him her telephone number to pass along to the respondent. The respondent called the applicant at work on August 11, 2009 and they arranged to meet on August 13, 2009 to view the property. After inspecting the property, the applicant and respondent executed the Intent to Rent/Rental Agreement, as described above. The applicant’s evidence was that the respondent did not inquire regarding her family’s sources of income or request a credit check.

9The applicant testified that she brought the Intent to Rent document to her caseworker at Ontario Works to support her request to have Ontario Works pay for the last month’s rent. The applicant wanted to be sure that the deposit was covered and she asked her caseworker to send the cheque for last month’s rent directly to the respondent. The applicant stated that the request was approved and a cheque for $850.00 was sent to the respondent, which is confirmed by her caseworker’s notes regarding the applicant’s file.

10The move in date was August 15, 2009 and the applicant stated that she and Mr. Harris worked from that date until September 2, 2009 to make the house ready to move into. The applicant was able to participate in the preparation work only until August 19^th, as she underwent knee surgery on August 23^rd. The applicant stated that the house was not dirty, but required freshening and in any event the applicant wanted to ensure the house was cleaned to her liking. The house required painting for which they received the respondent’s permission. Mr. Harris did most of the painting. The applicant stated that they incurred expenses of $60.00 for a carpet, $23.00 for dump fees, $61.57 for material to make curtains and $32.71 for paint and painting supplies. The applicant tendered receipts in respect of the dump fees, curtain material and paint and supplies.

11The applicant testified that she arranged to have the electricity billed to her. Her evidence was that she contacted the water and sewer utility to arrange to have these expenses billed to her. She was informed that the next bill for water and sewer services would be sent to the applicant and the account would be changed at that time.

12The applicant stated that she recovered from her surgery at her mother-in-law’s house and did not return to the property until August 30, 2009. Her evidence was that the respondent called her on August 31, 2009 to arrange to pick up the rent cheques. The applicant stated that she asked him to delay cashing the cheque for the September rent because her bank account had insufficient funds to cover the cheque, which was confirmed by her bank records. She explained that the funds for September’s rent were to come from her workers’ compensation benefits, which was expected to arrive in early September. The applicant’s bank records show two deposits of $1,000.00 made into her account on September 8, 2009, which she stated were in payment of workers’ compensation benefits, but were transferred through her mother-in-law’s account. According to the applicant the respondent replied to the effect “I guess it would be all right”. In describing her bank records, the applicant also noted a deposit of $776.48, which she explained was a payment from Ontario Works intended to bridge her income from the time was off work for her surgery to the commencement of her workers’ compensation benefits. The applicant also received $160.00 from Ontario Works to cover moving expenses.

13The applicant stated that she, Mr. Harris and their daughter went to the property to do some more painting and to begin to bring in their possessions on September 2, 2012. According to the applicant, she and her family arrived and found the respondent already there, doing something to the lock on one of the garages on the property. The applicant expected the respondent because he was to come by to collect the rent cheques. The applicant said hello to the respondent as she walked on crutches to the front door and he said hello back to her. The respondent’s tone concerned the applicant; therefore, she asked him if “everything was okay”. The respondent made a statement to the effect that he did not think the rental agreement would work out because she did not have the rent for the first of the month, as agreed.

14The applicant stated that she proceeded into the house and informed Mr. Harris that there was a problem. Mr. Harris went to the exit to the garage to speak to the respondent, while the applicant remained in the house with their daughter. The applicant was able to hear some but not all of the ensuing conversation between Mr. Harris and the respondent. The respondent repeated that the issue was that they did not have the rent on time, to which Mr. Harris stated that he understood the applicant had spoken to the respondent about that. The applicant heard the respondent state “you people can’t afford this” and it costs “more than rent”. She heard Mr. Harris ask the respondent what they could do to rectify the situation, but did not hear the response. She testified that Mr. Harris turned to her and informed her that the respondent wanted a year’s rent up front. The applicant stated that there was no way they could meet that demand and simply shrugged her shoulders. The applicant stated that she did not personally speak to the respondent after she went into the house. Mr. Harris did not speak with the respondent for much longer, but he informed Mr. Harris that they would have to vacate the property at the end of September. Mr. Harris relayed to the applicant that the respondent also said “you welfare people can’t afford this”.

15The applicant testified that after the discussion with the respondent she went into her daughter’s bedroom, sat down and cried. She started packing up her daughter’s toys and shortly thereafter she and Mr. Harris decided there was no point in moving into the property for only one month. Accordingly, they moved out everything they had brought into the house back to her mother-in-law’s house. The applicant stated that she explained to her daughter that they could not stay at the house, but would ask her grandmother if she could have the small bedroom in order to have her own room – which she had never had. Her daughter said that she was sad and told the applicant that she, the applicant, had broken a promise (i.e., that she would have her own room). The applicant entered her handwritten notes recording the events regarding her attempt to rent the property from August 15, 2009 onward, the incident on September 2, 2009. Her evidence was that she made the record on September 3, 2009.

16The applicant described the effect the incident had upon her. She stated that she was very upset at the prospect of having to return to her mother-in-law’s home because she would have no control over her own life. She was embarrassed and felt degraded that the respondent referred to her family as “welfare people”, a feeling that she estimated persisted for about two weeks. The applicant’s request of her mother-in-law to allow her daughter to use the spare room caused a fight. She also fought constantly with her husband, who she believed blamed her for losing the breakdown with the respondent. The applicant testified that it took until February 2011 for her and her family to secure rental accommodation of their own.

17In cross examination, the applicant reaffirmed that the respondent informed her and her family that they had to vacate the property on September 2, 2009, not September 1, 2009, as suggested by the respondent. The applicant stated that September 1^st had been Labour Day and that she spoke to the respondent during the evening of September 2^nd.

18The applicant acknowledged that the receipt tendered as proof of garbage dump fees and the cost of materials to make curtains were not the correct receipts. She agreed that she did not have receipts for almost $400.00 of the $425.00 in moving expenses claimed in the Application. She explained that she was relying on others to gather the receipts and her mother-in-law did not keep receipts. She admitted that she was not sure how she arrived at the figure $425.00 for these expenses.

19The applicant confirmed that she worked at the property cleaning and painting from August 15 to 19, 2009. Her rate of pay at Home Depot is $13.15 / hour, but she used $25 / hour to calculate the value of the work done on the property because she was informed that this is the rate charged by professional painters.

20The applicant acknowledged that she did not have the account for heating oil changed to her name. She confirmed that she contacted the electrical utility to have the electricity charged to her on or about August 18 or 19, 2009 and received a bill for $41.50, which she did not pay after being forced to leave the property. She reaffirmed that she spoke to a representative of the water and sewer utility who stated there was no contract to sign.

Testimony of David Harris

21David Harris is the applicant’s spouse. In August 2009, he was living in his mother’s house in Baysville, along with the applicant and their daughter. He stated they were looking for rental accommodation, but it was scarce in that area. The applicant informed him of a rental opportunity in Baysville and they viewed the property on August 12 or 13, 2009. Mr. Harris considered the property to be the perfect size for three people and the garage was attractive to him. Mr. Harris was present when the applicant and respondent negotiated the lease terms, as described above, but he did not sign the rental agreement. He did not recall the utilities for which they would be responsible, but he stated that the property was affordable.

22Mr. Harris indicated that the families’ income included the applicant’s employment income from Home Depot, what he could “bring in” and the applicant’s workers’ compensation benefits from Alberta, which benefits had not commenced as of mid-August 2009. They were in receipt of health benefits from Ontario Works for his diabetes. They requested assistance from Ontario Works regarding the last month’s rent deposit, which was approved.

23Mr. Harris testified that they received keys for the front and side doors of the house and began to move in on August 15, 2009. Mr. Harris stated that the house was tidy, but needed simple things like cleaning, painting and vacuuming to make it “their own”. According to Mr. Harris, the respondent agreed to allow them to paint when the lease was negotiated. Mr. Harris’ evidence was that he worked every day from August 15 to 30, 2009 for eight hours a day painting and cleaning the house to prepare it for their move in. Mr. Harris stated that they either had the needed painting supplies or acquired them at the Home Depot. He had planned a trip to the dump, but this ultimately did not happen.

24Mr. Harris testified that he had no discussions with the respondent between August 15and 30, 2009. He could not recall whether he had any discussions with the applicant regarding the rent in that time period. He next spoke with the respondent on September 2, 2009. Mr. Harris relayed the following account of interaction with the respondent that day. Mr. Harris and his family pulled up to the property and the respondent was working on the lock on one of the garages. Mr. Harris proceeded into the house and their daughter went with him. The applicant, who was on crutches, followed behind. The applicant came into the house and informed Mr. Harris that he needed to speak to the respondent because there was a problem. The applicant indicated that they had been asked to leave.

25Mr. Harris went out to the garage and asked the respondent what was wrong. The respondent replied “It wasn’t going to work out” and that he spoke to a friend at the District about their case and was not happy with the information he received. As a result, the respondent concluded that it was not a good idea to rent to them. Mr. Harris tried to explain that he was wrong, but the respondent did not let him finish. The respondent stated that they would not be able to afford the place because utilities would be $1,400.00 on top of rent. The respondent stated that “You welfare people can’t afford this place.” Mr. Harris stated that he was shocked and could not believe what was happening. He asked the respondent how they could rectify the situation. The respondent replied that they could pay him one year’s rent up front that day. Upon hearing this, Mr. Harris looked over to the applicant, who was in the hallway, who just shrugged.

26The respondent informed Mr. Harris that they could remain on the property for September as the last month’s rent had been paid. In Mr. Harris’ view, however, there was no point in moving in only to move back out in a month. Accordingly, they packed up their belongings and left. Mr. Harris stated that he was last in the house on September 3^rd or 4^th to remove everything he had brought into the house.

27Mr. Harris stated that the respondent caused him to feel insulted and used. He was insulted because the respondent judged them based on a misunderstanding, i.e., that they depended on Ontario Works benefits to pay the rent. He felt used because they had paid the rent while they painted and fixed up the house, but were then required to leave without even spending a night there. Mr. Harris explained that there was no intention of asking the respondent to pay for the time and costs they expended in painting and cleaning the house. That changed after they did the work, but were unable to live there. Mr. Harris stated that he estimated he put in about 100 hours of work at the property, working each day for two weeks, and that $25 / hour was the value he placed on his time.

28Mr. Harris stated that he and his family returned to his mother’s home and were only able to find a place of their own in March 2011.

Testimony of the Respondent

29The respondent described the events leading to his mother’s death on July 9, 2009. The respondent arranged the funeral and, as the executor or estate administrator, he was responsible for dealing with his mother’s estate. Among the many matters this entailed was his mother’s house at 11 East Road in Baysville, where she had lived for sixty years. The respondent did not intend to live in the house and he stated the insurance company informed him that it would cancel the insurance on the house if he did not rent it.

30The respondent therefore prepared the house for rental, including arranging to have his mother’s belongings removed and hiring a professional cleaning company to clean the house. The respondent contacted a local real estate agent, who inspected the house and advised the respondent that it was ready for presentation. The respondent put advertisements out and spoke to his mother’s neighbours about his intent to rent the property. One of the neighbours referred the respondent to the applicant. They arranged to meet on August 13, 2009 and, after the applicant and Mr. Harris inspected the house, the applicant and respondent executed an Intent to Rent from, as described in the undisputed facts, above.

31The respondent’s evidence was that the applicant informed him that she worked at Home Depot and that Mr. Harris was a licensed mechanic. The respondent did not ask them any questions about their income or hours of work and the Intent to Rent form did not require information about income. The respondent “took them on their word” and assumed they both had full time employment. The respondent testified that he was unaware that the applicant was in receipt of social assistance when they executed the Intent to Rent form on August 13, 2009.

32The respondent testified that the applicant and her family had access to the two garages on the property, but only from inside the house because the exterior doors were chained and padlocked. The respondent’s evidence was that he permitted the applicant and Mr. Harris to paint the interior of the house, but not to make structural changes to the house. Mr. Harris stated that the applicant and Mr. Harris put holes in some walls to install satellite television.

33The respondent stated that he called the applicant on August 18, 2009 to ask her if she had signed for the utilities. According to the respondent, the applicant stated that she had, which was a relief to the respondent. The respondent testified that he called the applicant on August 25^th or 26^th to remind her that he would be over to pick up September’s rent and the post-dated cheques for the rent going forward.

34In the evening of August 31, 2009, the respondent again called the applicant to remind her that he would be collecting the cheque for September’s rent and the other cheques the next day. The respondent described the conversation that ensued as follows. The applicant responded that the cheques were ready, but advised him not to deposit any of the cheques, as she had no money in the bank. The respondent reminded the applicant that the rent was due the next day and the applicant responded to the effect that they had not received their cheques yet. The respondent asked if she meant their pay cheques, to which the applicant responded “No: welfare cheques”. The respondent replied that they had not informed him that they were receiving welfare. The applicant replied to the effect that “they are helping us out”. The applicant did not advise him when she expected to have money for rent. The respondent advised the applicant that he would be over to see her in the morning and ended the conversation.

35The respondent stated that the next day, September 1, 2009, he went to the Ontario Works department in Bracebridge and asked to speak to the manager of the social assistance office. He explained to the manager that he had rented a house and the tenant informed him that she was receiving welfare, but had not received their cheques from the welfare office. The manager stated that the cheques went out to recipients on the 25^th of each month in order that they have money for rent at the first of each month. The respondent asked if Ontario Works could pay rent directly to him. The manager informed him that this could be done, provided the recipients agreed. The manager also informed the respondent that if his tenant worked, any amount they reported to Ontario Works would be deducted from the amounts paid in respect of rent. The respondent would then have to collect the balance of the rent. The respondent informed the manager that he had assumed that the applicant and her spouse were both working and only found out the night before that they were on welfare. They had already paid the last month’s rent and he was considering asking them to leave at the end of September. He further informed the manager that he would go to the water and sewer department, which was in the same building, to instruct them to put the water and sewer back into his name effective October 1, 2009.

36The respondent stated that he proceeded to the water and sewer department where he learned that he was still the customer on record. He stated that the applicant advised him that she had signed for the water and sewer on August 18^th. The staff informed the respondent that they had not heard from either the applicant or Mr. Harris. The respondent then returned to the social services department where he informed the manager that he was definitely going to ask the applicant and her family to leave at the end of September. His stated reasons for doing so was they did not have the rent ready on time, had not been truthful regarding their sources of income and had not signed for the water and sewer, contrary to what the applicant told him.

37The respondent’s evidence was that he then drove to 11 East Road in Baysville. When he arrived, Mr. Harris was in the garage and came out and met him in the driveway. He did not see the applicant, but assumed she was in the house.

38The respondent’s account of the conversation with Mr. Harris was as follows. Mr. Harris asked the respondent how he was, and the respondent replied “Not too good”. Mr. Harris asked why and the respondent stated that the rent was due today, but the applicant told him there was no money in the bank. The applicant had also told him that she had signed for the water and sewer service, but did not. The respondent informed Mr. Harris that he had come from the social assistance office in Bracebridge and described his conversation with the manager of social assistance. The respondent instructed Mr. Harris to make September the last month, as that had already been paid. Mr. Harris went into the house and the respondent assumed he spoke to the applicant. Mr. Harris returned from the house and protested that the respondent was not being fair. The respondent responded that they did not have money for rent and “You people will not be able to afford this place in the winter”. The respondent explained that utility costs are higher in the winter and given that they did not have the money for the first month’s rent he did not think they would be able to afford these expenses in the winter. The respondent informed Mr. Harris of his conversation with the social services manager in Bracebridge. The respondent did not see or speak to the applicant that day.

39The following day, September 2, 2009, the respondent noted that he went to Home Depot to collect supplies and spoke to a driver regarding siding he had ordered. He then returned to his own workshop to pick up some tools and then drove to a worksite on Acton Island. He did not see the applicant or Mr. Harris that day. On September 3, 2009, he returned the same worksite.

40The respondent explained that he understood that the term “welfare” to mean someone in need of financial assistance for whatever reason. Welfare, for the respondent, was synonymous with Ontario Works and social assistance. The respondent stated that welfare does not have a negative connotation to him. The respondent relayed examples of tenants to whom he rented the property after the applicant who had received employment insurance and Ontario Works benefits. He also described how he accommodated tenants who had difficulty paying their rent who had been open and honest about the issue.

41The respondent also explained that he had been in receipt of social assistance after his business closed during the recession in 1990 and he ran down his savings. Sometime in 1993, his finances got to the point that he could no longer pay his rent and he applied for social assistance. He advised his landlord of the situation and they agreed that he could do work on the house he rented in lieu of full payment of rent.

42In cross examination, the respondent reiterated that he first learned that the applicant’s family was in receipt of assistance in his conversation with the applicant on August 31, 2009. When asked about the purpose of the Intent to Rent form, the respondent stated that he believed the Alberta’s Worker’s Compensation Board was to pay the first month’s rent and the form was in connection to arranging the payment. The respondent did not recall who the payor was on the cheque for the last month’s rent and did not recall if the applicant had cashed the cheque and paid him herself. The respondent stated that he learned the applicant would receive workers’ compensations benefits from Alberta at the time he concluded the rental agreement with the applicant, although he acknowledged that he did not ask the applicant and Mr. Harris about their employment or sources of income. He acknowledged that the District asked him to return the first month’s rent payment, but stated he did not know why. He speculated that the Alberta Workers’ Compensation Board had forwarded the money to them. He stated that he was ultimately not required to return the deposit.

43The respondent confirmed that he spoke to the social services manager to see if Ontario Works could pay him directly for rent. He stated that he concluded that the applicant was in receipt of ongoing social assistance because of her reference to welfare cheques when she disclosed that she did not have the rent money. He agreed that there was no evidence that the applicant did receive regular benefits from Ontario Works. He did not agree that the applicant may have referred to workers’ compensation benefits in their conversation on August 31, 2009. The respondent acknowledged that he would not have approached the applicant’s or Mr. Harris’ employer had it been their pay cheques that they were waiting for to pay the rent.

44The respondent admitted that he informed Mr. Harris that they could rectify the situation by paying him one year’s rent up front. He acknowledged that this was probably the wrong thing to say at the time, but he was upset and felt deceived.

45The respondent acknowledged that the hydro bill for August 15 to September 13, 2009 had been in the applicant’s name. He also clarified that the applicant would not have had to order fuel for the furnace. He explained that one only needs to “sign” if one wants automatic refuelling.

Submissions

46The applicant submitted that she and her family were “thrilled” when they learned of an available rental property in Baysville. The house at 11 East Road was perfect because it was in the community in which they lived, had two bedrooms and a garage they could use. The daughter would have her own room for the first time in her life. Accordingly, the parties completed an Intent to Rent form setting out the terms of the tenancy. The applicant was to pay $850.00 a month in rent, plus the cost of utilities. The applicant submitted that she required assistance to procure the required last month’s rent deposit and therefore she sent the Intent to Rent form to Ontario Works to support her request. The applicant submitted that the evidence establishes that Ontario Works approved the request and paid the last month’s rent deposit directly to the respondent.

47The applicant submitted that the outcome of the case turns on the event that occurred on August 31, 2009 and September 1 or 2, 2009. On August 31, 2009, the respondent called the applicant regarding the rent cheques. The applicant’s evidence was that she informed the respondent not to cash the cheque for September’s rent because the money was not in the bank. The applicant’s evidence was that she informed the respondent that she was waiting for her cheque for her workers’ compensation benefits from Alberta, which she expected on September 3, 2009. The respondent’s evidence was that the applicant said she was waiting for her “welfare” cheque.

48The applicant submitted that her banking records confirm that she did not receive income support from Ontario Works in September 2009. The assistance the applicant’s family received was $160.00 for moving expenses, extended health care benefits for Mr. Harris’ diabetes and $850.00 as a Community Start Up Benefit to cover the last month’s rent deposit. The evidence was that the sources of income for the applicant’s family were her employment income from Home Depot and workers’ compensation benefits from Alberta (commencing in September 2009).

49The applicant submitted that when she informed the respondent that she was waiting for her workers’ compensation cheque, he misheard her and formed the impression that she was receiving welfare. The applicant noted that the respondent was forthright in admitting that he went straight to the District of Muskoka to speak to the Ontario Works officials about the applicant. The respondent learned that Ontario Works sends out income support cheques on the 25^th of each month. This information led the respondent to conclude that the applicant lied when she said she did not have the rent money. The applicant submitted that the respondent asked Ontario Works to pay the applicant’s rent directly to him. He was informed, however, that the applicant’s consent was required for such an arrangement and also that any income received by the applicant would be deducted from her benefits. The respondent would therefore be required to collect any rent that remained outstanding. The respondent did not like this arrangement, which the applicant submitted is demonstrated at paragraph 7 of the respondent’s original Response, a letter to the Tribunal dated January 30, 2009, which states as follows:

Did not say welfare pays only so much for rent…But I did say that was told welfare would pay the The (sic) entire amount of rent directly to me provided that the recipients agreed to that and if the recipients Worked (sic) and received any monies and reported it ..that amount would be deducted from the rent Payment (sic) and I would be responsible to collect the balance from the renters which I did not like and Concluded (sic) it was not a good situation

50The applicant submitted that the respondent was concerned that his tenant would have trouble paying the rent. The applicant submitted that the applicant’s attempt to get Ontario Works to pay him directly was itself discriminatory, as the respondent could not have dealt directly with an employer to collect rent. Accordingly, the respondent treated the applicant differently based on his perception of her source of income, i.e., Ontario Works.

51The applicant submitted that the respondent wanted nothing to do with her and her family once he concluded that she was in receipt of Ontario Works benefits and that she had to agree to have Ontario Works pay her rent directly to him. Consequently, he came out to the house and informed the family that they had to leave by the end of September. In doing so, the respondent treated them in a manner distinct from how he would have treated them if they were not, or not perceived to be, in receipt of public assistance.

52The applicant and her family, however, were so affronted and upset that they packed their belongings and left the property immediately. They had no choice but to return to the applicant’s mother-in-law’s house – a situation they thought they had left behind.

53The applicant submitted that the evidence establishes that the respondent violated the section 2 of the Code and made the following submissions regarding the appropriate remedy. Applicant’s counsel acknowledged that the applicant had inadvertently provided the wrong receipts to support her claim for the cost of materials and supplies purchased to make the house ready for her family to move in. She submitted, however, that the evidence establishes that the applicant and Mr. Harris made a considerable expenditure of time cleaning and painting the house, the benefit of which they were prevented from enjoying. In this respect, counsel submitted that the respondent was unjustly enriched through his discrimination against the applicant and her family. Applicant’s counsel also argued that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the rent deposit paid by the District of Muskoka. Counsel explained that the payment was a Community Start up Benefit and that a claimant is entitled to a maximum of $1,500.00 of such benefits in a two year period. The $850.00 paid to the respondent unjustly enriched him and counted against the applicant’s entitlement and therefore should be returned to her as compensation for the reduction in the benefit available to her.

54The applicant submitted that $10,000.00 was an appropriate amount to compensate the applicant for the emotional consequences of the respondent’s discriminatory acts. In this regard applicant’s counsel pointed to the evidence of the emotional impact upon the applicant and her family. She also noted the evidence that the family experienced strife and tumult when the respondent prevented them from renting the property, contrary to the Code. Counsel cited the following cases in support of the applicant’s position: Garbett v. Fisher [1996] O.H.R.B.I.D. No 12 (Ontario Board of Inquiry), Dixon v. 930187 Ontario Inc. 2010 HRTO 256, Ines v. Caroline Co-operative Homes Inc. 2006 HRTO 19, and Neale v. Princeton Place Apts. Ltd. (c.o.b. “Princeton Manor”) 2001 BCHRT 6.

55The respondent submitted that he never intended to offend or belittle the applicant or Mr. Harris. The respondent stated that he wanted three things from the applicant that he did not get: (1) to pay the rent on time, starting on September 1, 2009; (2) to be honest and up front regarding the rental agreement and (3) to take care of the house and property (a reference to the holes caused by installing satellite television). The respondent submitted that he rented the house to the applicant in good faith, but he was disappointed when she did not fulfill her obligations. The respondent trusted the applicant and Mr. Harris at their word, but they let him down by their actions and omissions. The respondent wished to establish and open and honest business relationship with the applicant, regardless of her finances and as long as she paid her rent on time.

56The respondent submitted that he believes he is a reasonable man and can relate to others who experience financial hardship. The respondent was deeply disappointed in the overall outcome of his dealing with the applicant, but his intentions were never hurtful. The respondent himself felt hurt by the applicant’s dishonesty, which came to light when more information became available after the first of the month in September 2009. The respondent submitted that the applicant’s bank records showed a balance of $438.24 on September 1, 2009. Therefore, if she had borrowed $412.00 she would have had enough to pay the rent, which she could have paid back when she received her benefit funds on September 3, 2009.

57The respondent submitted that the applicant provided only one receipt for $32.00 out of $425.00 claimed for materials and supplies and the evidence did not establish who made that expenditure. In any event, the applicant agreed that she would pay these costs. Accordingly, the applicant submitted the Tribunal should dismiss this claim.

58The respondent also submitted that the claim for the time spent cleaning and painting the house should be dismissed. He noted that most of this claim was based on the time spent by Mr. Harris, who is not an applicant. The respondent did not agree to hire the applicant or Mr. Harris or to pay for their expenses.

59The respondent argued that the rent deposit was used for the rent for September 2009 and the applicant and her family were entitled to remain in the house for that month. That they chose to leave was their prerogative, but does not entitle the applicant to compensation.

60The respondent submitted that he did not discriminate against the applicant and her family. Accordingly, he requested dismissal of the claim for general damages as well.

Analysis and Decision

61Section 2(1) of the Code states as follows:

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, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance.

62There was no dispute that benefits provided by the Ontario Works program are a form of public assistance.

63The Tribunal’s jurisprudence makes clear that the prohibited ground of discrimination need not be the sole or the major factor leading to the discriminatory conduct and that proof of an intention or motivation to discriminate is unnecessary. Direct evidence of discrimination is also unnecessary, as discrimination will more often be proven by circumstantial evidence and inference: Phipps v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 877.

64The Tribunal’s jurisprudence establishes that a person who is perceived to be a member of protected group is also protected against discrimination on a prohibited ground under the Code. See: McLarry v. Universal Supply Group, 2011 HRTO 893.

65The applicant has the initial evidentiary onus of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, a prima facie case that the respondent discriminated against her because of her race or colour. A prima facie case of discrimination “is one which covers the allegations made and which, if believed, is complete and sufficient to justify a verdict in the complainant’s favour in the absence of an answer from the respondent…”. See Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v. Simpsons-Sears Ltd., 1985 CanLII 18 (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536 at paragraph 28. If the applicant establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the respondent must establish defences and exemptions on a balance of probabilities. Although an evidentiary burden to rebut discrimination may shift to the responding party, the onus of proving discrimination remains on the applicant throughout. See: Ontario (Disability Support Program) v. Tranchemontagne, 2010 ONCA 593, at paras. 112 and 119).

66The respondent’s evidence regarding his knowledge of the applicant’s sources of income was contradictory and he appeared to be confused about what he knew and when. In his evidence in chief, he stated that he understood the applicant worked at Home Depot and Mr. Harris worked as a mechanic and he asked no questions about their incomes or employment. He made no mention of workers’ compensation benefits. This evidence is consistent with his Response. In cross examination the respondent stated that the applicant informed him that she would receive workers’ compensation benefits when they met on August 13, 2009 and he speculated that the first month’s rent deposit came from the Alberta workers’ compensation board. The applicant’s and Mr. Harris’ evidence indicated that the applicant’s workers’ compensation benefits were not discussed on August 13, 2009. Their evidence was consistent on this point, both internally and with each other. Had he been aware of these benefits, the respondent would have had less reason to be concerned regarding payment of rent or to jump to the conclusion that the applicant was in receipt of ongoing assistance from Ontario Works when he spoke to the applicant on August 31, 2009, as discussed below. There was no reason for him to believe that the rent deposit came from the Alberta workers’ compensation board. Accordingly, I find that the respondent was not aware that the applicant would receive workers’ compensation benefits in September 2009 and I prefer the evidence of the applicant and Mr. Harris on this point.

67The central events in this Application occurred on August 31, 2009 and September 1, 2009. The reliability of both the applicant’s and the respondent’s evidence was somewhat mixed regarding their telephone conversation on August 31, 2009. The applicant’s evidence was that she was waiting for payment of workers’ compensation benefits from Alberta, not for any payments from Ontario Works, and therefore had no reason to refer to “welfare”. In fact, while the applicant was not receiving regular income support from Ontario Works, she was waiting for a payment from Ontario Works to bridge her income until she received her workers’ compensation benefits. Accordingly, the applicant expected this bridge payment before her workers’ compensation benefits, although, as it happened, both payments arrived on the same day, September 8, 2009. The respondent was asked some questions about his hearing, but there was no evidence that he suffered from any deficit in this regard and there was no suggestion of any comprehension difficulties. Accordingly, I find it unlikely that he would mistake the term “workers’ compensation” for the word “welfare”. In the circumstances, I find it most probable that the applicant said she was waiting for a welfare cheque in reference to the bridge payment she expected from Ontario Works. The respondent’s evidence that the applicant did not tell him that she expected to receive funds on or after September 3, 2009, is contradicted by his account set out in Response, whereas the applicant’s evidence was consistent on this point. I find that the applicant did inform the respondent that she expected to have the rent money on or about September 3, 2009. In any event, there is no dispute that respondent concluded, erroneously, that the applicant was in receipt of income support from Ontario Works on an ongoing basis.

68It is also undisputed that, having come to this conclusion, the respondent attended the next day at the social assistance offices in Bracebridge to make inquiries regarding Ontario Works in relation to tenancy arrangements. The respondent learned that regular income support payments are mailed on the 25^th of each month, which I find caused the respondent to conclude, again erroneously, that the applicant had been dishonest when she did not have money for rent. The respondent also learned that Ontario Works could pay the applicant’s rent directly to him, but only if she agreed, and that any employment income the applicant earned would be deducted from the amounts Ontario Works paid in respect of rent. The respondent would therefore have to collect any outstanding amounts himself. The evidence does not establish that the respondent actually requested direct payment of rent, but I find that the respondent decided to rescind the tenancy agreement with the applicant when learned that he could not impose direct payment of rent upon the applicant and that he was not guaranteed to collect all of the applicant’s rent directly from Ontario Works.

69I make this finding based on the respondent’s testimony, but also upon the content of the respondent’s Response. The Response contains two explanatory narratives in response to the Application, both of which describe the respondent’s actions and conclusions after speaking with the social assistance manager in Bracebridge. The first is set out in a letter dated January 30, 2010, which was included in the Response and, as noted above, states as follows:

Did not say welfare pays only so much for rent…But I did say that was told welfare would pay the The (sic) entire amount of rent directly to me provided that the recipients agreed to that and if the recipients Worked (sic) and received any monies and reported it ..that amount would be deducted from the rent Payment (sic) and I would be responsible to collect the balance from the renters which I did not like and Concluded (sic) it was not a good situation

The second account is contained in section 9 of the Response form “Responding to the Allegations” in which the respondent states as follows:

… I then called the District and asked when these people would be getting their cheque and was informed that they get the money before the end of the month so they have the money for the first of the month..

When I went to see Rose Janes and David Harris, I did tell them they should not be moving in and that I had talked with the District and asked if they could pay me direct for the rent.. and was informed they could, but if you had work and declared that work… the amount would be deducted from the rent paid to me and I would have to collect the balance from you and also you would have to agree for the District to send me the rent payments…

I then told the District rep that I would be asking you to vacate the premises as you could not pay the first month on time and stated to me you had not received any money as yet but the district told me you had. I didn’t think it would work out all way around and on top of that you had all the utilities to pay each month plus fuel in colder months…

The respondent’s evidence and the content of his Response establish that the respondent concluded the applicant to be receiving Ontario Works benefits on an ongoing basis during the conversation when she informed him September’s rent would be late. The evidence establishes that the respondent did not decide to require the applicant and her family to move out when he learned that the rent would be late. Rather, I find the respondent decided to investigate how the applicant’s receipt of Ontario Works benefits would affect him as a landlord, which led him to attend at the District offices and make inquiries. He did not like the answers he received and I find that he decided to terminate the tenancy agreement with the applicant because the options available regarding the payment and receipt of rent under Ontario Works were not to his liking. I also find that that the respondent concluded that the applicant would be unable to afford the rent and utilities for the house because she was an Ontario Works recipient. Consequently, I find that the respondent’s perception that the applicant was in receipt of public assistance was a factor in his decision to end the tenancy arrangement with the applicant, contrary to section 2 of the Code.

70Having taken the decision to end the landlord / tenant relationship with the applicant, the respondent drove to the property to inform the applicant and her family. The evidence of the applicant and Mr. Harris diverges significantly from that of the respondent regarding how this incident unfolded. I find the respondent’s account to be the most reliable. His evidence was consistent and he provided detailed evidence regarding why this incident must have occurred on September 1, 2012, i.e., that he collected supplies and attended at a work site on Acton Island on both September 2 and 3, 2009. He also noted, correctly, that Labour Day fell on September 7^th in 2009, contrary to the applicant’s assertion that it fell on September 1^st. That the respondent arrived at the property after the applicant and her family is consistent with the fact that came there after attending at the District offices. The description of the house indicated that the large garage was accessible from the house. Mr. Harris could have spoken to the respondent from the interior door leading to the garage if the respondent was either in the garage or the exterior door (i.e., the main entrance) to the garage was open. Mr. Harris’ evidence was that the respondent was doing something with the lock on the exterior entrance, not that he opened the doors or entered the garage. The applicant submitted her contemporaneous notes to support her testimony. These notes, however, were not consistent with her testimony regarding this incident. Neither, for that matter, was the narrative of her Application. The applicant’s notes state the following regarding the incident on September 1, 2009:

• The respondent arrived after the applicant and her family and changed the lock on the garage;

• The applicant informed the respondent that the District (i.e., Ontario Works) had nothing to do with their rent agreement;

• The applicant informed the respondent that the District had only helped them with last month’s rent; and,

• The applicant informed the respondent that she would be paying the rent each month.

The narrative to the Application contains the following statements:

• On September 2^nd, Mr. Wright came to the house. He told Rose Janes that he was “not happy” because he had not received rent due on September 1^st. Ms. Janes reminded Mr. Wright that she was not going to have the money until the next day, September 3^rd.

• Ms. Janes told Mr. Wright that the family was not actually in receipt of Ontario Works on a regular basis. Their income came from her Alberta WCB claim and from the child benefit they received.

The applicant’s testimony included no assertion that she informed the respondent of the extent of the assistance she received from Ontario Works, that she discussed her sources of income with the respondent, or that she would have the rent money the next day at the time he terminated the tenancy agreement. The record in her notes that the respondent arrived after her and her family directly contradicts her testimony and Mr. Harris’ on this point. Consequently, I find the respondent’s evidence regarding this incident to be more reliable. It follows from this finding that I also find that the incident occurred on September 1, 2009, the respondent arrived after the applicant and her family, the respondent spoke to only to Mr. Harris in the driveway, the applicant did not hear any part of the conversation and the respondent stated “you people” not “you welfare people” regarding the family’s ability to afford to rent the house.

71While I have accepted the respondent’s evidence regarding the September 1, 2009 incident as more reliable, the parties’ evidence was quite consistent regarding the message the respondent delivered to the applicant and her family. That message was that the applicant had concealed receiving Ontario Works benefits, that he did not like his options regarding renting to Ontario Works recipients, he did not believe the applicant and her family could afford to rent the house because they were receiving Ontario works and he was no longer willing to rent to the applicant. When Mr. Harris asked him what could be done to salvage the relationship, the respondent demanded a year’s rent in advance – a demand he knew the applicant and Mr. Harris could not meet.

72I accept that the respondent believed that the applicant had been dishonest with him on several issues and that this perceived dishonesty was a factor in his decision to end the tenancy agreement with the applicant. The evidence establishes that, in fact, the respondent’s conclusion in this regard was based on incorrect assumptions and misunderstandings, which were the result of incomplete communication between the parties. The respondent concluded the applicant was receiving ongoing support from Ontario works and that she did not disclose this to him. The applicant was not in fact relying on Ontario Works for income support; therefore, there was nothing to disclose. The respondent believed the applicant had been dishonest when she stated she transferred the utilities to herself. The evidence, however, was that she arranged to have the electricity billed to her and there was no requirement for her to create an account for the heating oil. There was no dispute that the water and sewer account had not been transferred to the applicant. Given that she made the effort to take on the electricity account, I find it more likely that she contacted the water and sewer utility and was told there was no action for her to take at the time, as she testified. Accordingly, while I find the respondent’s perception that the applicant was dishonest with him was honestly held, I also find his perception to have no basis in fact. The applicant did not always communicate as clearly as she might have with the respondent, which contributed to some of the assumptions he made. However, the fact remains that the cost of those assumptions was borne entirely by the applicant and her family.

73The respondent noted that he has since rented the property to tenants in receipt of public assistance and accommodated tenants who faced difficulty in paying their rent. Of course, the examples he cited came after his experience with the applicant and it may be that he developed a better understanding of his obligations as a landlord. In any event, the fact that the respondent did not discriminate because of a particular prohibited ground of discrimination in one instance is not proof of itself that he did not in another: Dixon, supra and Direk v. Coffee Time Donuts, 2009 HRTO 1887. The applicant also noted that he himself had received public assistance during a period of financial difficulty. However the fact that a respondent may be or have been identified by a particular ground of discrimination does not mean that he did not or could not discriminate because of that Code ground: Ramoutar v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 181.

Remedy

74The Tribunal’s remedial authority is set out in section 45.2 of the Code as follow:

45.2 (1) On an application under section 34, the Tribunal may make one or more of the following orders if the Tribunal determines that a party to the application has infringed a right under Part I of another party to the application:

1. An order directing the party who infringed the right to pay monetary compensation to the party whose right was infringed for loss arising out of the infringement, including compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

2. An order directing the party who infringed the right to make restitution to the party whose right was infringed, other than through monetary compensation, for loss arising out of the infringement, including restitution for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

3. An order directing any party to the application to do anything that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the party ought to do to promote compliance with this Act.

75The Tribunal’s remedial power under the Code is compensatory. An award of monetary compensation seeks to compensate the victim of discrimination by restoring her to the position she would have been had the discrimination not occurred, rather than punish the perpetrator.

76An award of compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect recognizes the inherent value of the right to be free from discrimination and the experience of victimization. In ADGA Group Consultants Inc. v. Lane, 2008 CanLII 39605 (ON SCDC), 91 OR (3d) 649, 295 DLR (4th) 425 (ON S.C.D.C.), the Ontario Divisional Court confirmed that the factors to be considered in setting the amount of damages include, humiliation, hurt feelings, the loss of self-respect, dignity and confidence by the applicant, the experience of victimization, the vulnerability of the applicant, and the seriousness of the offensive treatment.

77In Arunachalam v. Best Buy Canada, 2010 HRTO 1880, the Tribunal stated as follows regarding the jurisprudence dealing with awards for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, at paragraphs. 52-54:

(…) The Tribunal’s jurisprudence over the two years since the new damages provision took effect has primarily applied two criteria in making the global evaluation of the appropriate damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect: the objective seriousness of the conduct and the effect on the particular applicant who experienced discrimination: see, in particular, Seguin v. Great Blue Heron Charity Casino, 2009 HRTO 940, 2009 HRTO 940 at para. 16.

The first criterion recognizes that injury to dignity, feelings, and self respect is generally more serious depending, objectively, upon what occurred. For example, dismissal from employment for discriminatory reasons usually affects dignity more than a comment made on one occasion. Losing long-term employment because of discrimination is typically more harmful than losing a new job. The more prolonged, hurtful, and serious harassing comments are, the greater the injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

The second criterion recognizes the applicant’s particular experience in response to the discrimination. Damages will be generally at the high end of the relevant range when the applicant has experienced particular emotional difficulties as a result of the event, and when his or her particular circumstances make the effects particularly serious. Some of the relevant considerations in relation to this factor are discussed in Sanford v. Koop, 2005 HRTO 53 at paras. 34-38.

78As noted above, the applicant seeks financial compensation of $425.00 for the cost of the materials and supplies purchased to prepare the house, $2,875.00 for the value the applicant’s and Mr. Harris’ labour to clean and paint the house, $850.00 for the rent deposit and $10,000.00 to compensate the applicant for the emotional consequences of the respondent’s discriminatory acts.

79The applicant requested compensation in respect of the cost of materials and supplies and the value of her and her husband’s labour on the basis that the respondent’s discriminatory actions prevented them from enjoying the benefits of these expenditures of money and effort. In my view, the Tribunal’s remedial jurisdiction would allow it to compensate an applicant for these kinds of expenditures, assuming they could be quantified. The applicant acknowledged that the evidence regarding the cost of supplies and materials was deficient. The applicant provided only one receipt for $32.71 for a purchase of painting supplies to support her claim in this regard. The evidence was unclear regarding whether it was the applicant or someone else who made this purchase. Consequently, the evidence does not support an award of damages for supplies and materials.

80Almost all of the damages claimed for labour was attributed to Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris, however, is not a party to this Application and there is no basis to award damages to the Applicant in respect of losses incurred by him. The applicant claimed 15 hours of work, spent painting and cleaning. The applicant did not indicate how much time she spent at each activity, although her testimony suggested that her main activity was cleaning. The applicant did not challenge the respondent’s testimony that he had the house cleaned and neither the applicant nor Mr. Harris suggested that the house was dirty when they took possession. Rather, the applicant indicated that she would have cleaned regardless of the state of the house to ensure it met her standards of cleanliness. In these circumstances, I find that it is not appropriate to require the respondent to compensate the applicant for cleaning. I am unable to determine on the evidence how much time the applicant spent painting; therefore, I decline to award damages for that activity.

81The claim for $850.00 rent deposit was based on the fact that it was paid as a Community Start up Benefit and an individual may receive a maximum benefit of $1,500.00 in a two year period. The applicant would have been deprived of the $850.00 had she needed assistance through the Community Start up Benefit in the two years after September 2009. There is no evidence before me regarding the operation of the Community Start up Benefit. Rather, applicant’s counsel explained how it worked in her closing argument. There is also no evidence that the applicant required additional Community Start up Benefits after September 2009 and therefore there is no basis on the evidence before me on which to conclude that she suffered any loss. Accordingly, I find damages regarding the last month’s rent deposit are not warranted.

82The respondent’s discriminatory behaviour had a significant impact on the applicant. Denial of rental accommodation, particularly in an area where such accommodation is scarce, is an objectively serious matter. The respondent unjustly accused the applicant and her husband of dishonesty and informed them that he considered them a bad risk because he believed that they relied on Ontario Works. He stated that the applicant and her family could remain in the property only if they paid him a full year’s rent up front, when he was obviously aware that they could not meet such a demand. This bad faith demand only served to underscore his message to the applicant and her family that his view that they were financially incapable of renting from him. I have no doubt that this was a humiliating experience. The applicant and her family were forced to return to her mother-in-law’s house, a situation of dependency they thought they had left behind, which clearly caused the applicant humiliation and embarrassment. The loss of the rental opportunity caused strife between the applicant and her husband, who she believed blamed her for it. Her daughter was to have her own room for the first time, which was lost to her. It is clear that her daughter’s reaction to this loss was painful to the applicant, particularly the suggestion that the applicant broke a promise. In light of the impact of the respondent’s discriminatory conduct on the applicant, I find that $7,500.00 is an appropriate award of compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

Order

83In the result, I order:

• Within 30 days of the date of this Decision, the respondent will pay the applicant $7,500.00 as monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect; and,

• The respondent shall pay pre-judgment interest on this amount from September 1, 2009, to the date of this Decision, in accordance with section 128 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O 1990, c. C.43. In the event that the respondent fails to make the payment described above within 30 days of the date of this Decision, the respondent shall pay post-judgment interest in accordance with section 129 the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O 1990, c. C.43.