Francis v. Precision Property Management Inc., 2013 HRTO 2056

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Althea Francis

Applicant

-and-

Precision Property Management Inc. and Edgardo Cubias

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: December 12, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 2056

Indexed as: Francis v. Precision Property Management Inc.

APPEARANCES

Althea Francis, Applicant

Self-represented

Precision Property Management Inc., Respondent

Michael Ramdharry, Representative

Edgardo Curios, Respondent

Maria Kotsopoulos, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application was filed on May 16, 2013 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that she was discriminated against in housing because of disability, receipt of social assistance, and reprisal.

2By Case Assessment Direction dated July 15, 2013 (the “CAD”), the Tribunal on its own initiative determined that a summary hearing would be held to hear the parties’ submissions on whether the Application has a reasonable prospect of success. The summary hearing was held by teleconference on October 18, 2013.

3The summary hearing process is described in Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure as well as the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Summary Hearing Requests. The issue that Rule 19A requires the Tribunal to determine is whether the Application, in whole or in part, has no reasonable prospect of success. If a finding is made that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success, it is dismissed. In the absence of such a finding, the Application continues to proceed through the Tribunal’s procedure.

4An applicant is not required to prove her case at a summary hearing. It is the role of the Tribunal to examine the allegations set out in an application and determine whether or not it should move ahead in the hearing process or be dismissed at this stage.

5The Tribunal is not empowered to remedy general allegations of unfairness. Discrimination in the legal sense requires proof that unfair treatment is based, at least in part, on a prohibited ground under the Code. In other words, the ground must somehow be a factor in the adverse treatment. The issue in this case is whether the applicant can draw a link between her housing complaints and her disability or receipt of social assistance.

6The applicant was given an opportunity to make submissions to assist the Tribunal in understanding the connection between the respondents’ actions and the prohibited grounds alleged. The respondents also made submissions in support of dismissing the Application.

ANALYSIS

7The applicant has been a member of the Lom Nova Co-op (the “Co-op”) since 2005. The corporate respondent Precision Property Management Inc. (“Precision”) is the property manager of the Co-op. The individual respondent Edgardo Cubias (“Cubias”) is a former member of the Co-op’s Board of Directors.

8In May 2013, the Co-op commenced a court application to terminate the applicant’s membership and occupancy rights in the Co-op. The application is scheduled to be heard in the spring of 2014. The applicant believes that her membership is being terminated because she is a “nuisance”. She states she does not understand what this means.

9In the Application before the Tribunal, the applicant complains that the decision to terminate her membership in the Co-op was made without consultation. She complains that she was not provided with information about what she had to do to respond to the termination. The applicant complains further about being forced off the Board of Directors in 2012 because she reported the Board’s “neglect of contractual obligations”. She also complains that confidential rental information about people on subsidies has been provided to members of the Co-op. She does not believe that members who pay market rent should have access to this confidential information.

10The Application contains further allegations against the Board of Directors of the Co-op. These complaints include corrupt bidding practices, over-housing deception, the failure to communicate effectively and provide solutions for difficult problems, and the mismanagement of the “Rent Geared to Income” process.

11Finally, the applicant complains that she was assaulted by Cubias. She also complains that he was on the Board of Directors for longer than permitted under the Co-Op’s By-Law.

12During the summary hearing, the applicant was asked to connect her complaints to a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code. The applicant stated the Board of Directors acted inappropriately in holding her accountable and calling her a “nuisance” and did not give her the information that she needed. She stated further that Board members called her “crazy” and that her mental health was raised on several occasions. The applicant did not indicate the circumstances under which the issue of her mental health arose. She states in the Application that she faced mental health discrimination, but provided no explanation as to how.

13When asked about the reprisal allegation, the applicant said she is isolated from the community and that the leaders are hindering community involvement at the Co-op. She stated that although she is qualified to be involved with the Co-op, she has been ignored.

14The applicant has made general allegations against Precision, including allegations of bullying and misusing the legal system and failing to deal with over-housing deception, but has failed to link those general allegations to her and to the alleged prohibited grounds of discrimination. She complains about an assault by Edgardo Cubias on May 11, 2013 where the police were called, but fails to link this allegation with a prohibited ground of discrimination.

decision

15The thrust of the applicant’s complaints revolve around the decision by the Board of Directors to terminate her membership and occupancy rights in the Co-op and the general functioning of the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors and the Co-op are not parties to this Application and the allegations have no reasonable prospect of success for this reason. The allegations that the applicant does not understand why her membership in the Co-op is being terminated for nuisance and the failure of the Co-op to provide her with the necessary information to permit her to respond, can be raised in the court application that is being heard in the spring of 2014.

16While the applicant has made general complaints against Precision, a named respondent in this Application, she has failed to link those general complaints with treatment against her on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. The same holds true with her complaint against the individual respondent Edgardo Cubias. The applicant has failed to explain why the alleged assault was discriminatory. Because the applicant has been unable to link her complaints against Precision and Cubias with a prohibited ground of discrimination, the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.

ORDER

17The Application is dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.