HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Feliksas Kirilovas
Applicant
-and-
Housing Connections
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price
Indexed as: Kirilovas v. Housing Connections
APPEARANCES
Feliksas Kirilovas, Applicant ) Self-represented
Housing Connections, Respondent ) W. Gordon Steinberg, Paralegal
1In this Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him with respect to housing on the basis of disability. The respondent filed a Response to the Application denying that it had discriminated against the applicant. This Decision provides written confirmation that during the course of a summary hearing the Tribunal granted the applicant’s request to withdraw the Application.
BACKGROUND
2A summary hearing to determine if the Application had a reasonable prospect of success was initially convened by teleconference on December 8, 2011, but was adjourned so that the Tribunal could arrange for the services of a Russian-English interpreter. The summary hearing was reconvened, with a Russian-English interpreter provided by the Tribunal, on January 12, 2012.
3The applicant is a Toronto resident who has a terminal illness and who is in receipt of Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) benefits. The applicant has qualified for a subsidized housing unit for a number of years but is still waiting for one. In the meantime, the applicant pays market rent for the apartment where he currently lives. After paying his rent, the applicant indicates that he has only $60 per month left for food and his other needs.
4The respondent is a subsidiary of the Toronto Community Housing Corporation, which administers the lists of people waiting to get into a subsidized housing unit. These include the waiting lists that the applicant is on.
5During the summary hearing, the respondent explained in some detail the applicant’s position on the various waiting lists (based, where applicable, on the applicant’s “priority” status) at the buildings where the applicant is able and/or willing to live. During the summary hearing, the respondent also explained the different “priority” categories and generally how the priority system works. In particular, the respondent explained that the first priority for placement in subsidized units are victims of abuse; the second priority are persons with terminal illnesses, which is the category in which the applicant falls; and the third priority includes members of other disadvantaged groups, such as, for example, people living in shelters and persons who are homeless, among others.
6During the summary hearing, the respondent ascertained that there was one building within the applicant’s desired geographical area (Steeles to Lawrence, and Yonge to Dufferin) where the applicant was not yet on the waiting list for a subsidized unit. At the applicant’s request, the respondent added the applicant to the waiting list for that building, the Dan Family Residence on Torresdale Avenue. The applicant’s position on that waiting list, like the others, is based on the April 2008 date on which he moved to “priority” status.
REQUEST TO WITHDRAW
7Having heard from the respondent about the above matters, the applicant indicated during the summary hearing that he did not wish to continue with his Application against the respondent. Specifically, he indicated that he was happy with the information provided during the summary hearing, that he understood that the respondent had been doing everything possible to get him into a subsidized unit, and that he wished to withdraw his human rights Application. Upon receiving this information, I took some time to clarify with the applicant, through the interpreter, that he understood that his position on the subsidized housing waiting lists would not be affected one way or the other by the applicant’s decision whether or not to pursue his human rights Application against the respondent. (The respondent confirmed this, as well.) I also made sure that the applicant understood that it was completely up to him whether he wished to pursue his Application against the respondent or not. The applicant indicated that he understood these things, and that he did wish to withdraw his Application. There was no objection by the respondent.
8Rule 10.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide that where a Response to an Application has already been filed, an Application may be withdrawn only with the permission of the Tribunal. Having regard to all of the circumstances, including the respondent’s consent to the withdrawal, I permitted the applicant to withdraw his Application at the summary hearing.
9The Tribunal’s file in this matter will be closed accordingly.
Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of January, 2012.
"signed by"________________
Sheri D. Price
Vice-chair