HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Charles Simon-Aaron Applicant
-and-
Toronto Housing Authority Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Date: September 23, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 1416
Indexed as: Simon-Aaron v. Toronto Housing Authority
APPEARANCES
Charles Simon-Aaron, Applicant Self-represented
Toronto Housing Authority, Respondent W. Gordon Steinberg, Representative
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to housing because of race, colour, ancestry and place of origin, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2On July 15, 2014, the Tribunal directed of its own initiative that a summary hearing would be held to determine whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The respondent was advised that it did not need to file a Response until further direction.
3The summary hearing was held on September 15, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. Since, the applicant had not called in by 10:00 a.m. I sought submissions from the respondent on whether the Tribunal should dismiss the Application as abandoned. During these submissions the applicant called in. The Tribunal proceeded with the summary hearing.
4For the reasons that follow the Application is dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success.
Background
5The applicant explained that he found out through a friend that there was a vacancy at a certain apartment building. The applicant explained that the location of this apartment building is very good and in a well sought-out neighborhood. Though the applicant could not identify the exact date, he confirmed that he called a representative of the respondent during the first week of April 2014. He was advised that there was indeed an apartment available to rent and that he needed to make a rental application.
6The applicant faxed his rental application for the apartment on April 23, 2014. He says that immediately after he faxed the rental application he called to make sure that the respondent had received it. The applicant states that at first the same representative stated that they had not received the rental application, however, after checking she confirmed that it had indeed been received. The applicant states that he was told that the apartment was no longer available and that his application could be put on a waiting list for consideration for any future vacancies.
7The applicant explained that he believes that the apartment was not in fact rented to someone else. He finds it suspicious that when he called in early April 2014 that he was told that it was available but that when he faxed his application on April 23, 2014 that it had been rented. The applicant believes that there is a policy that the respondent will not rent an apartment, in certain neighborhoods, to single black men. He believes that this is what has occurred to him in this case.
8When I asked the applicant why he waited over two weeks to apply to rent the apartment he advised me that it took him that long to put his rental application together because it was so detailed.
Decision
9Details about the nature of a summary hearing were set out as follows in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994 at paras. 8 and 9:
In some cases, the issue at the summary hearing may be whether, assuming all the allegations in the application to be true, it has a reasonable prospect of success. In these cases, the focus will generally be on the legal analysis and whether what the applicant alleges may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation.
In other cases, the focus of the summary hearing may be on whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated. Often, such cases will deal with whether the applicant can show a link between an event and the grounds upon which he or she makes the claim. The issue will be whether there is a reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to him or her can show a link between the event and the alleged prohibited ground.
10Having considered the applicant’s submissions and Application I find that the applicant has not identified any evidence to support his belief that he was denied the ability to rent the apartment for discriminatory motives. Though the suspicious timing of a decision may be a factor that the Tribunal will consider during a summary hearing, I do not believe that this is an issue in this case. Though the applicant believes that it is suspicious that he was told that the apartment was rented, I do not agree that it is so based on an objective standard. The apartment was in a sought-out neighborhood in Toronto and the applicant waited over two weeks to file a rental application. The applicant has not identified any evidence to support his suspicion that the apartment was not rented on April 23, 2014 as he was told by the respondent.
11The applicant has not identified any evidence to support his belief that there is an unofficial policy in place to deny single black males from obtaining rental units in certain sought-out neighborhoods. These are bald allegations without any factual foundation.
Order
12The Application is dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of September, 2014.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair