Wilson v. Housing Connections, 2015 HRTO 1434

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Denise Wilson Applicant

-and-

Housing Connections and Elvira Dos Santos

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: October 27, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1434

Indexed as: Wilson v. Housing Connections

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Denise Wilson, Applicant

Self-represented

Housing Connections and Elvira Dos Santos, Respondents

Usha Prasad, paralegal

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 housing on the basis of family status and receipt of public assistance. The applicant also alleges reprisal.

2Pursuant to a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), dated June 17, 2015, the Tribunal directed on its own initiative that the matter proceed by way of a summary hearing. In its CAD, the Tribunal indicated that it has decided to hold a summary hearing because:

a. It appears that the applicant may be unable to prove that there is a connection between what the respondent is alleged to have done, and the grounds of family status and receipt of public assistance cited in the Application. That is, although the applicant may believe that the conduct of the respondent is connected to the ground, it is not clear that there is evidence available to the applicant to prove the connection. The focus of this inquiry is on the evidence the applicant has or may be able to obtain;

b. The issue the applicant is raising does not appear to fall under the Code. The focus of this inquiry is on the legal basis for the applicant’s claim and whether or not there is any reasonable prospect the allegations may amount to a Code violation; and,

c. The reprisal section of the Code only applies to the actions of a respondent (or respondents) that are intended as a reprisal for any of the following: (1) claiming or enforcing a right under the Code; (2) instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or, (3) refusing to infringe the right of another person under the Code [s.8]. See for example Mirea v. Canadian National Exhibition, 2009 HRTO 32; Chan v. Tai Pan Vacations, 2009 HRTO 273; Noble v. York University, 2010 HRTO 878 at para. 31. To proceed with the Application, there must be a reasonable basis to believe that the applicant could establish the respondents(s) reprised against him or her for one of these three things.

3On July 14, 2015, a Notice of Summary Hearing was issued. Among other things, the Notice provided that if a party did not attend the hearing, the Tribunal may proceed in its absence (if a party is a respondent or intervener) or dismiss the Application as abandoned (if a party is the applicant).

4A summary hearing was held on October 8, 2015. At the outset of the hearing, the applicant and respondents were in attendance. The applicant commenced her submissions but after 25 minutes, exited the conference call without notice or explanation. It appeared that the applicant had hung up on purpose (as opposed to it being a technical issue). At the time of her exit, I was in the process of clarifying the issues in the summary hearing to the applicant.

5The Tribunal set the hearing down for approximately 20 minutes in the event that the applicant decided that she wished to re-connect to the conference call. The applicant did not re-connect to the hearing within that time frame. The Tribunal resumed the hearing and proceeded to hear submissions from the Respondent which took at least another 20 minutes. At no point did the applicant seek to re-connect to the call nor did she contact the Tribunal at any time after the call.

6For reasons that follow, the Application is dismissed.

The Allegations

7The applicant clarified her factual allegations during the summary hearing and made submissions in response to the issues set out in the CAD until she left the hearing.

8The applicant receives a rent subsidy from the respondent, Housing Connections, and alleges that she received “excessive scrutiny” by the individual respondent, an employee of Housing Connections, when she called to inquire how a rent increase had been determined. In her conversation with the individual respondent, the applicant alleges that the individual respondent stated that her son’s information about attending the “YES” youth program was insufficient despite the fact that the applicant had forwarded an email earlier in the process to another person (who I understand was also an employee of the respondent) about this program. As a result of this request, the applicant alleges that she had to request a letter from the YES program confirming her son’s acceptance which she sent in by email to the respondent. The applicant states that she was then required to physically bring the letter in to the respondent. The applicant alleges that in one of the emails to her about the required information, the individual respondent indicated that her subsidy of less than $20.00 per month was in jeopardy of cancellation if she did not act promptly.

9Notwithstanding these inquiries, the applicant continued to receive the subsidy and reside at her apartment during the relevant time.

10The applicant alleges that the excessive scrutiny was discriminatory because it was a reprisal. In particular, the applicant alleges that the scrutiny was a reprisal for writing a letter to the “higher ups” in Housing Connections complaining about a negative comment made by another person at Housing Connections. The applicant identified the date of the complaint as 2012, in her oral submissions (the Application referred to the date as 2013). The applicant stated that the comment that had been made – “you don’t want to pay the rent” was not discriminatory under the Code but “just discriminatory in and of itself”.

11The applicant states that a medical letter had been submitted with the annual rent increase application from the family doctor stating that her son was out of school due to a medical condition, which she particularized in the Application. In her oral submissions, the applicant alleged that in these circumstances, it was “unethical” for the individual respondent to threaten her that the subsidy was in jeopardy.

12When I asked the applicant if she was alleging this was a reprisal within the meaning of the Code and outlined for her what section 8 provides, she stated that it did fall within the section but she would need to take a “closer look” at the section before she could explain how and that she did not have the paperwork with her in order to do so during the conference call.

13Apart from the foregoing, the applicant did not provide any further submissions on the issue of how her allegations were connected to the grounds alleged in the Application or how her allegations amounted to a violation of the Code. As indicated above, the applicant hung up during the conference call hearing without prior notice or explanation.

14In responding to the factual allegations, the respondents state that Housing Connections provides a rent geared to income subsidy for qualifying candidates. In order to qualify, the respondents state that every 12 months, Housing Connections must review the income and assets of every tenant who receives a subsidy. In the case of the applicant, given that her son was over the age of 16 years, the applicant was required to submit either employment verification information or confirmation of student status every year. The respondents state that they received some information that the applicant’s son had been offered a spot in the Youth Employment Services (“YES”) program but required confirmation that her son had accepted the spot for the year in question. This was the purpose of the communications with to the applicant.

15The respondents submit that any inquiries in this regard were in accordance with the requirements of the Housing Services Act citing the entirety of Ontario Regulation 298/01 and Sections 28 and 29 of Ontario Regulation 367/1.

16Given the applicant’s departure from the hearing, the respondents requested that the Application be dismissed as abandoned.

Analysis

17I have determined that it is appropriate to consider the issues identified in the CAD rather than dismiss this Application as abandoned. The applicant had an opportunity to and did make submissions on the issues in the summary hearing before she left the hearing without explanation.

18The issue before me in determining the summary hearing is whether the applicant has no reasonable prospect of establishing that the respondent discriminated against her based on the Code grounds identified.

19The Tribunal does not have the general power to deal with allegations of unfairness. It can only deal with alleged discrimination on the grounds set out in the Code: Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994. Further, as the Tribunal indicated in Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389 for an application to continue in the Tribunal’s process following a summary hearing, there must be a basis beyond mere speculation and accusations to believe that an applicant could show discrimination on the basis of one of the grounds alleged in the Code.

20In this case, while it is clear the applicant felt offended by being asked to provide information about her son’s involvement in the program in the manner described, I find that there is no reasonable prospect of the applicant establishing that she was discriminated against on the basis of the grounds alleged and/or was reprised against within the meaning of the Code.

21I begin with the issue of reprisal as the applicant focussed her submissions on her belief that she had been subjected to a reprisal.

22The reprisal section of the Code only applies to actions of a respondent that are intended as a reprisal for asserting one’s rights under the Code. In this case, the applicant alleges that the respondent’s actions resulted from a complaint she made a year or two earlier about the comment “you don’t want to pay the rent”. However, the applicant did not elaborate on the content or characterization of her complaint to Housing Connections made earlier such that it could be reasonably interpreted as a complaint of discrimination under the Code. In fact, the applicant expressed her own view that the complaint was not about discrimination under the Code but “just discrimination in and of itself”. Further, the applicant did not assert that the individual respondent was aware of the complaint (such that there could be a finding of intention). Based on the applicant’s submissions, even assuming that the individual’s respondent’s actions could be reasonably interpreted as some type of threat because of an earlier complaint which in my view is questionable, I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant will be able to establish that the actions of the respondent were intended as a reprisal for asserting a Code-related right.

23In addition, I find that there is no reasonable prospect of the applicant establishing that she has been discriminated against on any other ground.

24In order to establish discrimination, an applicant needs to establish that she was singled out and/or subjected to disadvantageous treatment because of a prohibited ground.

25In this case, the applicant did not allege that she was singled out or treated differently from anyone else but instead appeared to be alleging that she was treated poorly. In her words, the individual respondent decided to “show me she’s in control” and was “bitchy” with her. The applicant acknowledged that she did not lose the subsidy and she continued to reside at the apartment in question. In my view, based on the applicant’s submissions, it is not clear to me that the applicant was disadvantaged.

26However, even assuming that the applicant experienced adverse treatment and/or was disadvantaged by the respondent’s conduct, the applicant made no submissions on the link between this treatment and the grounds plead, i.e. receipt of public assistance and family status. I note that it is insufficient for an applicant to merely point to the fact that she is in receipt of public assistance and/or otherwise aligns with a prohibited ground to establish discrimination. Instead, an applicant must establish that she was singled out and/or disadvantaged because of the prohibited ground.

27Finally and in any event, the respondents provided what appeared to be a reasonable explanation for the requirement to file the information about the program in question. This evidence was not contested by the applicant given that she had exited the call before their submissions. In the circumstances, it would appear that there is a legitimate reason why the respondent required an update of the YES program.

28For all of the above reasons, I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed. The Application is dismissed.