HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
William Casson Applicant
-and-
Enterprise Canada Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Paul Aterman
Indexed as: Casson v. Enterprise Canada
APPEARANCES
William Casson, Applicant
Jean-Alexandre De Bousquet, Counsel
Enterprise Canada, Respondent
Jeremy Hann, Counsel
Introduction
1This Decision explains why this Application is being dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.
2The applicant in this case is disabled. He receives benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”). He lives in a rooming house in a town in Eastern Ontario. His rent is paid for by ODSP and, as he resides in a rooming house rather than an apartment, the rental payment includes utilities. In other words, the applicant is not a customer of any utilities and thus does not receive any bills from utility companies. He also does not own a credit card.
3In June of 2013 the applicant needed to travel from his home town to Kingston for an appointment with a medical specialist. ODSP granted him an allowance to cover the cost of renting a car to get to his appointment.
4The respondent is in the business of renting cars to the public. It will ordinarily rent out a vehicle to a customer upon production of a valid credit card.
5In cases where a customer does not have a credit card, the respondent will rent out a vehicle if the customer can provide a minimum deposit of $300, two utility bills with no previous outstanding balance, proof of employment or of some form of government support and proof that the customer resides locally (i.e. in the same locality as the branch of the respondent that is renting the car). The respondent indicates that proof of local residence is required to make it easier for a branch to recover its property if a vehicle is not returned.
6The applicant tried to rent a car from the respondent to travel to his medical appointment and the respondent ultimately refused because the applicant could not produce two utility bills. He believes this refusal was discriminatory and filed this Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability.
7A summary hearing was held on August 13, 2014 to determine whether this Application should be dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success. For the reasons below I conclude that it should be dismissed.
the positions of the parties
8In attempting to rent a car the applicant initially contacted one branch of the respondent in Ottawa. He was told by an employee at that branch that because he had no credit card, he would have to provide a cash deposit and two utility bills. When the applicant explained his circumstances and the fact that he does not receive bills because he is not a customer of utility companies, the employee agreed to waive this requirement and accept documentation of his ODSP benefits as proof of local residency.
9Two days before he was due to pick up the rental vehicle the applicant requested to move the reservation because the branch where he had initially reserved a vehicle was due to be closed on the day he was going to pick it up. When the applicant contacted a second branch of the respondent he was again told of the need to produce utility bills as proof of residence. He again explained his circumstances to the respondent’s employee, but this time the respondent would not waive the requirement to produce utility bills and accept the applicant’s ODSP documentation as a substitute.
10The effect of this was that the applicant could not rent the car and travel to Kingston. He missed his medical appointment.
11The applicant alleges that the respondent’s requirement that renters who do not have credit cards must produce two utility bills is discrimination on the ground of disability. He argues that due to his disability he is limited to living in a rooming house. He cannot afford the kind of accommodation where he would be paying for utilities separate from his rent. Because of this he cannot meet the respondent’s requirement for documentation. He says that while the respondent’s requirement that renters without credit cards must produce utility bills is neutral on its face, it is a requirement that is discriminatory in its impact. This is because it has the effect of precluding him, as a disabled person in receipt of ODSP benefits, from renting a car.
12The respondent argues that the applicant’s complaint is not about how he has been treated because of his disability. Rather, it is about his treatment as a result of the fact that he is receiving public assistance in the form of ODSP benefits. While receipt of public assistance is a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code with respect to the provision of accommodation, the Code does not include receipt of public assistance as a ground of discrimination with respect to the provision of services (see ss. 2 and 1 respectively).
13The respondent advances two arguments in support of its assertion that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success. First, it maintains that neither the applicant’s status as