HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Penny Chester
Applicant
-and-
City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation c.o.b. as Toronto Port Lands Company
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson
Indexed as: Chester v. City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation c.o.b. as Toronto Port Lands Company
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Penny Chester, Applicant
Self-represented
City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation c.o.b. as Toronto Port Lands Company, Respondent
Andrew Pinto, Counsel
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of race, colour, ethnic origin and gender identity.
2The applicant describes herself as a black woman from South America. The applicant states that she and her husband decided to open their own business selling marine parts and accessories when her employer Eastern Marine Systems ("EMS") was to close at the end of June 2012. The applicant states that she approached the respondent to lease a portion of the property that EMS rented at 12 Leslie Street in Toronto. The applicant states that the respondent required her and her husband to pay EMS’ rent arrears before it would enter into a lease with them. The applicant states that this condition was discriminatory and that the respondents later rented the same location to Mr. Gales, the owner of EMS, who is a white man, despite the rent arrears. The respondents deny discrimination and state that the condition regarding rent arrears was a precaution because it appeared that EMS may be trying to circumvent its obligations by operating a similar business under a different name and also state that the same condition applied to Mr. Gales, and his new company Eastern Marine Systems Inc. (“EMS 2”) before he could again rent from the respondent.
3On December 6, 2013, the Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the Tribunal should dismiss the Application, in whole or part, because it has no reasonable prospect of success. In an Interim Decision, Chester v. City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation c.o.b. as Toronto Port Lands Company, 2014 HRTO 318, I found that the applicant’s submissions consisted, for the most part, of a series of bare assertions to the effect that she believed the respondent discriminated against her. The applicant did, however, point to the respondent's lease arrangements with Mr. Gales/EMS 2, which she submitted would show differential treatment as between her and Mr. Gales. As evidence regarding a respondent's actions is often in the respondent's sole possession, I directed the respondent to file with the Tribunal and deliver to the applicant all documents setting out the lease arrangement between Mr. Gales/EMS 2, all documents setting out any conditions Mr. Gales, EMS or EMS 2 were required to meet before the respondent would enter into a lease with EMS 2, and all documents indicating that EMS’ rent arrears were paid before the respondent entered into a lease with EMS 2. I directed the parties to make submissions regarding the documents disclosed by the respondent, which they did.
4In my view, the applicant largely repeated the submissions she made during the summary hearing, which, again consisted largely of bare assertions. The applicant submitted, however, that the respondent disclosed correspondence between it and Mr. Gales/EMS between August 2011 and June 27, 2012 regarding EMS’ rent arrears. The applicant submitted that these documents are irrelevant to the issue of the conditions Mr. Gales/EMS/EMS 2 had to meet before the respondent would enter into a lease with EMS 2. I agree. The correspondence produced by the respondent focusses solely on the need for EMS to pay its arrears and the potential consequences of failing to do so. Nothing in this correspondence indicates that Mr. Gales was contemplating incorporating a new company or that payment of EMS’ rent arrears was a condition to be met before the respondent would rent to such a new company.
5The respondent disclosed the License Agreement that the respondent and EMS 2 executed on November 16, 2012 and a copy of a cheque dated October 24, 2012 that it states Mr. Gales delivered to the respondent in payment of the last of EMS’ arrears. The License Agreement does not indicate whether Mr. Gales/EMS/EMS 2 had met any preconditions for renting from the respondents. The cheque bears the notation “12 Leslie”, but it is not clear who the cheque is from or what it the payment is for. This is not to say that the respondent did not require payment of EMS’ rent arrears before it would rent to EMS 2, but I am unable to make that finding at this point in the proceeding. On the material before me, I cannot conclude that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success. The Application shall continue.
6The parties indicate in their pleadings that they agree to mediation. Accordingly, the Tribunal shall schedule this matter for mediation.
7I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of July, 2014.
“Signed by”
Douglas Sanderson
Vice-chair