Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Robert Savage Applicant
-and-
London & Middlesex Housing Corporation Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw Date: July 29, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1013 Indexed as: Savage v. London & Middlesex Housing Corporation
APPEARANCES
Robert Savage, Applicant ) Self-represented London Middlesex Housing Corp., ) Mark Melchers, Counsel Respondent )
Introduction
1The hearing for this Application commenced on July 16, 2015, and at the outset, preliminary issues were argued, including:
- Whether the Application should be dismissed as untimely; and
- document disclosure requested by the applicant.
2The applicant filed this Application on February 21, 2014 alleging reprisal and discrimination with respect to housing because of race, disability, creed, sex, marital status and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").
3The Tribunal reviewed with the applicant his allegations of discrimination, which included not being given a bigger apartment to accommodate his exercise equipment as requested of the respondent and maintenance issues with respect to his unit. The applicant advised with respect to the maintenance issues, that with the exception of one issue, all of the issues have been resolved. The applicant agreed that the maintenance issues came within the jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board, but advised that the reason he raised the maintenance issues was to demonstrate the behaviour of the respondent's employees.
4The applicant's allegations consisted of those in his Application and in the particulars he provided in his June 22, 2015 e-mail in response to the Tribunal's interim orders of May 12 and June 17, 2015.
5The applicant's allegations in his Application consisted of events that happened from 2005 "up until today" [to February 21, 2014 when the Application was filed], as follows:
- The respondent refused to give him a bigger apartment to accommodate his assistive machines (which he advised at the hearing was an exercise machine);
- The respondent refused to do work in his apartment since April, 2005;
- The respondent refused a work order in January, 2012 and Amanda David (an employee of the respondent) told him it was his fucking problem;
- His sinks and toilets did not work until February, 2014; and
- A bat with a 4 foot wing span flew through his ceiling in the bathroom in September, 2013;
- The respondent's representatives told him in 2003 and 2004 they would not work with a "fucking Indian"; and
- The respondent's representatives threatened him in 2003 and 2004.
6The applicant in response to the interim orders provided further particulars, which included:
- The names of those who told him he could not have a bigger apartment, and the dates, the most recent time being when Amanda David told him this in September, 2013 during a fire alarm inspection;
- That Amanda David refused to fix the toilet in September, 2013; and
- Details of several maintenance issues the applicant has encountered.
7Both parties made submissions with respect to the timeliness issue.
the law
8Section 34 of the Code states:
(1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,
(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or
(b) if there was a series of incidents