Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Nana Kow Kuffuor Applicant
-and-
Michael Wan Kam Respondent
Reconsideration DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: October 24, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1793 Indexed as: Kuffuor v. Kam
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Nana Kow Kuffour, Applicant Self-represented
1This Application was filed on February 2, 2012 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination and reprisal in the area of housing on the grounds of race, colour and disability.
2The Application identifies the applicant as a Black man living with mental and physical disabilities. In January 2012, the applicant rented a room in the respondent’s townhouse, which was shared with other tenants. The applicant alleges that he was in a vulnerable state as a result of his disabilities and that the respondent landlord took advantage of this. The applicant claims that he was promised a clean environment, but the respondent landlord allowed the co-tenants to keep the kitchen and bathroom in filthy conditions. The applicant alleges that he was discriminatorily evicted in February 2012 for voicing his concerns. The applicant alleges that respondent landlord described him as a “scary Black man” when contacting the police to have him evicted.
3The respondent filed a Response on March 22, 2012 denying the allegations. The respondent alleges that the applicant was informed prior to moving into the townhouse that he was renting a room in shared accommodations, which involved a team effort to clean the house. The respondent alleges that the house was sufficiently tidy and that he attempted to address the applicant’s concerns. The respondent alleges that the applicant’s tenancy was terminated for nonpayment of the initial deposit and for nonpayment of February's rent, as well as threatening other tenants both verbally and by text messages. The respondent also asserted that he is exempt under section 21(1) of the Code as the owner of a shared accommodation dwelling.
4On July 19, 2013, the Tribunal issued Decision 2013 HRTO 1264 dismissing the Application. The Tribunal held that the townhouse was a shared occupancy of residential accommodation and, therefore, the respondent is entitled to rely on section 21(1) of the Code. The Tribunal stated that since the respondent established that he qualified for this exemptive provision, the respondent was discharged from the application of the rights and responsibilities with respect equal treatment in housing and, accordingly, the applicant’s allegations of discrimination must be dismissed. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant’s claims regarding a breach of contract for perceived sanitary violations did not constitute claiming or enforcing a human right within the meaning of reprisal under the Code. The Tribunal also found that, applying the test of reprisal, the applicant had not established that the respondent intended to retaliate by contacting the police when faced of the applicant’s threatening comments.
5On August 13, 203, the applicant filed a request for reconsideration. The applicant asserts that the Tribunal ignored his disabilities and the evidence supporting his version of the events.
DECISION
6Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with authority to reconsider its decisions. Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that a Request for Reconsideration will not be granted unless the Tribunal is satisfied that:
(a