Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
S.R., A.F. and E.R. Applicants
-and-
Drewlo Holdings Inc. Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: November 25, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1945 Indexed as: S.R. v. Drewlo Holdings Inc.
APPEARANCES
S.R., A.F. and E.R., Applicants Self-represented
Drewlo Holdings Inc., Respondent Kristin Ley, Counsel
Introduction
1These are four Applications filed by members of the same family under sections 34 and 35 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to housing because of disability and race and alleging that one of the applicants experienced reprisal or the threat of reprisal. At the hearing, the applicant, S.R. also indicated that he intended to argue on the basis of the facts already pled, that he also experienced discrimination on the basis of gender.
2The applicants are, A.F., her husband, S.R. and their son, E.R., on whose behalf, his father, S.R., has brought an Application. The respondent in all the Applications is the landlord from whom A.F. rents residential accommodation. As one of the four Applications has been made on behalf of a minor child, in order to give practical effect to the Tribunal’s policy on the anonymization of decisions involving minor children, all the applicants are referred to throughout this Decision by their initials.
3The Applications all arise out of interactions between A.F., a tenant of the respondent, her husband, S.R., and the superintendent, Anna Box, that took place on September 23, 2011 and a further meeting on October 5, 2011 that involved the co-superintendents, Anna and Syd Box, the property manager, Donna Vogel, and the tenant’s husband, S.R..
4By way of relief, the applicants collectively seek to have their rent for the 18 months that have passed since the incident refunded to them, an amount that is approximately eighteen to twenty thousand dollars. They also seek a transfer to another property owned or managed by the respondent company and any appropriate changes to the respondent company’s policies to ensure future compliance with the Code.
5During the hearing, I heard the evidence from S.R. and A.F. in support of the four Applications filed. On behalf of the respondent, I heard from Anna Box, one of the building superintendents and Reverend van Harten, a tenant in the building who witnessed one of the interactions between Anna Box and A.F..
6For the reasons that follow, the Applications are dismissed.
The law
7The relevant sections of the Code are reproduced below:
Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, 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 or disability.
Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.
No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part.
The Facts
8There is no dispute amongst the parties that A.F. is the sole lease holder and that the lease agreement in place for the 2011 calendar year, when all the relevant events took place, lists