Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Michael Clancy Applicant
-and-
CityHousing Hamilton Respondent
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: December 2, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1994 Indexed as: Clancy v. CityHousing Hamilton
Written Submissions
Michael Clancy, Applicant Self-represented
CityHousing Hamilton, Respondent Denise Crawford, Representative
Introduction
1This Application was filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on July 31, 2012, and alleges discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, age and receipt of public assistance.
2The Application includes the following three main allegations of discrimination, which primarily concern the actions of a particular employee of the respondent: (i) on June 28, 2012, the applicant asked the respondent’s employee how to operate an elevator “on service” and the employee did not take the time to explain and demonstrate to the applicant how to do so, showing contempt for seniors and persons with disabilities; (ii) on June 29, 2012, when the applicant approached the employee to put an elevator on service, the employee was intimidating and demeaning, initially withheld permission to use the elevator, and told the applicant that he was not “a normal person”; and, (iii) the applicant’s written request to install an air conditioner in his apartment window, submitted to the respondent on June 29, 2012, was withheld.
3In its Response to the Application filed November 26, 2012, the respondent denies that it discriminated against the applicant. The respondent submits, among other things, that both it and its employee have no knowledge that the applicant has a disability. The respondent also submits that its employee recalls that he said to the applicant something to the effect that “normally, most people only use the elevator on service for one to three trips”. The respondent submits that, at the time, the applicant was requesting to use the elevator on service for the sixth time.
4In his Reply filed January 16, 2013, the applicant disagrees that he requested the use of the elevator for a sixth time. He submits that when he asked to use the elevator on service on June 29, 2012, it was his second request.
5The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) to amend his Application, filed May 9, 2013, and the respondent’s Request for Summary Hearing, filed May 22, 2013.
Request to Amend
6In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated August 22, 2013, the Tribunal noted that it appeared that the applicant provided submissions in support of his RFOP to amend his Application, and included documents, but it was not clear from the materials what actual amendments the applicant was seeking. The Tribunal directed that, if the applicant was seeking to amend his Application, he was to clearly set out in writing what actual amendments he was requesting be made to the Application, within 14 days of the date of the CAD.
7The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal’s August 22, 2013 CAD. On October 3, 2013, the Tribunal issued a second CAD, again directing the applicant to confirm whether he was seeking to amend his Application, and, if so, to clearly set out in writing what actual amendments he was requesting be made, within 14 days of the date of the CAD.
8The Tribunal received correspondence from the applicant on October 15, 2013, in response to the Tribunal’s October 3, 2013 CAD. In his correspondence, the Applicant asks that his Application be amended to include the entire text of his correspondence, and his RFOP and attached documents filed May 9, 2013, as evidence and argument to support his Application, and as an answer to a “nexus” objection of the respondent. He submits that, if human rights law “is accessible to citizens with no law degree and no lawyer, then citizens must rely on HRTO discernment in proactive reading of a complaint made by an ordinary citizen.”
9In a response to the applicant’s RFOP dated October 24, 2013, the respondent submits that the applicant’s RFOP should be dismissed. The respondent submits that the applicant does not provide any new factual information in support of his allegations of discrimination, or any new allegations of discrimination. The respondent submits that the applicant is seeking to amend his Application to include legal argument in support of his Application, and reply submissions.
10The applicant has not complied with the directions set out in the Tribunal’s August 22 and October 3, 2013 CADs to clearly set out in writing what actual amendments he is requesting be made to his Application. In addition, Rule 6.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice reads as follows:
A complete Application must provide the information requested in every section of the Application form and the related supplemental form(s) and Form 4 (if applicable), and must set out all the facts that form the substance of the allegations of discrimination including the circumstances of what happened, where and when it happened, and the names of person(s) or organization(s) alleged to have violated the Applicant’s rights under the [Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/