Julia Lewis v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services, 2014 HRTO 1242

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Julia Lewis

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman

Date: August 22, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1242

Indexed as: Lewis v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

APPEARANCES

Julia Lewis, Applicant

Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services, Respondent

Michelle Schrieder, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleging discrimination with respect to housing because of marital status and receipt of public assistance contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) was deferred on May 4, 2011 pending adjudication of an appeal brought by the applicant before the Social Benefits Tribunal (“SBT”). The reasons for deferral can be found in Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 871.

2The SBT has decided the appeal. The applicant has requested that her Application be reactivated. The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing by teleconference on August 18, 2014 to determine whether to reactivate the Application and to determine whether it can proceed further in the Tribunal’s process.

3I find that the SBT decisions appropriately dealt with the substance of this Application as it relates to the allegation of discrimination because of receipt of public assistance. In relation to the allegation of discrimination because of marital status the Application has no reasonable prospect of success. As a result, this Application is dismissed.

receipt of public assistance - THe SBT Decisions

4The applicant receives benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”). In 2009 she applied to the Director of OSDP for Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit (“CSUMB”) assistance. She was seeking CSUMB in order to move into an apartment and the assistance would have enabled her to pay the rent she needed to start a tenancy.

5The Director refused to grant CSUMB on the ground that the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria for CSUMB as she had failed to provide necessary information required to assess her application. The applicant appealed to the SBT and, in doing so, alleged that the Director’s decision was contrary to the Code in discriminating against her on the ground of receipt of social assistance.

6On October 30, 2009 the SBT made an initial decision denying the applicant’s appeal. In its reasons for decision the SBT found that the Director refused her application because she had failed to provide necessary information to assess her eligibility for CSUMB. The SBT noted that, with the proper information, the applicant would qualify for the benefit and all she needed to do was re-apply.

7As the applicant had raised an allegation of discrimination because of receipt of public assistance, her SBT appeal was referred to a pre-hearing conference to determine whether a second hearing was warranted to examine the allegation of this Code violation.

8At the pre-hearing conference on November 16, 2011 the applicant was given an opportunity to seek legal advice. She was also directed to set out in writing how and why she believed she had been discriminated against. The SBT stated that upon receipt of her submissions it would determine whether or not to hold a second hearing. She was advised that if the particulars of her allegations did not establish a basis for holding a second hearing, then it would not take place.

9The particulars of the allegation that the applicant provided to the SBT were that the property manager of the apartment that she wanted to rent discriminated against her on the basis of her receipt of public assistance.

10The SBT issued a decision on July 26, 2012 that determined there was no need to hold a second hearing. There are two reasons for its decision. The first is that the denial of CSUMB assistance was due only to the fact that the applicant failed to provide the necessary information.

11The second reason given by the SBT is that the allegation of discrimination made by the applicant was against the property manager of the apartment that she wanted to rent. The SBT reasoned that it has no jurisdiction to deal with allegations of discrimination against property managers of apartment buildings. It only can decide whether decisions of the Director are to be affirmed, overturned or varied. As no allegation of discrimination had been made against the Director, the SBT found that this was a second reason for dismissing the appeal.

receipt of public assistance - did the SBT appropriately deal with this allegation?

12In s.45.1 the Code provides that the Tribunal “may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.”

13There are two issues to be determined here: whether the hearings before the SBT constituted proceedings within the meaning of s.45.1 and, if they did, whether the SBT decisions appropriately dealt with the substance of the allegation of discrimination because of receipt of public assistance.

14I am satisfied that the SBT proceedings were proceedings within the meaning of s.45.1. The SBT is an independent adjudicative tribunal. It provided the applicant with an initial oral hearing in relation to her appeal of the denial of CSUMB assistance and gave her written reasons for its first decision. This was followed by an opportunity to state her case regarding the alleged Code violation in writing. The SBT considered her arguments and issued a second written decision. Given the procedural protections accorded to the applicant, I am satisfied that the SBT appeal process was a proceeding within the meaning of s.45.1.

15I am also satisfied that the SBT appropriately dealt with the substance of the allegation of discrimination because of receipt of public assistance that is set out in the present Application. The allegation is the same in both proceedings. As I note above, the July 26, 2012 SBT decision found that the reason for the denial of CSUMB assistance was because the applicant did not provide basic information required of her. Although it is not expressly stated in the SBT decision, I interpret this to mean that the SBT implicitly found the Director did not violate the Code in deciding to deny benefits to the applicant. I come to this conclusion because the sole purpose of the SBT proceeding at that stage was to look into whether there was sufficient reason to hold a hearing into an alleged Code violation.

16Further, the SBT determined that it only has jurisdiction over decisions made by the Director and, to the extent that the allegation was being made not against the Director but against the property manager of an apartment building, it could not remedy that alleged Code violation. Similarly, in the present Application the Director is the named respondent, not the property manager or the owner of the apartment building. Any alleged violation of the Code by the property manager would have to be addressed by the applicant naming that person as a respondent, but she has not done so.

17For the above reasons I conclude that the SBT decisions appropriately dealt with the substance of the allegation of discrimination because of receipt of public assistance, and this allegation is dismissed.

marital status

18The applicant’s allegation that she was discriminated against on the basis of marital status is that she was asked by one of the respondent’s employees to fill out a form confirming that she was not living with her husband and son. The narrative goes on to state that the applicant’s “so-called biological family is insane and they want to ruin my marital status”.

19The applicant was not able to explain in what sense the respondent could be said to have discriminated against her based on marital status. Specifically, she could not explain how filling in a form regarding whom she was living with is discriminatory if the purpose of the form is to determine eligibility for assistance to cover housing costs.

20The remainder of the narrative appears to be directed at the intentions or actions of her biological family, and the respondent cannot be held accountable for the actions of her family members.

21As the applicant could not point to any evidence that she could obtain that would support an allegation that the respondent discriminated against her based on her marital status, I conclude that this allegation has no reasonable prospect of success and must be dismissed.

order

22The Application is dismissed.