Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Simon Malek Applicant
-and-
Mountain City Housing Co-operative Inc. Respondent
Decision
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: February 4, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 161 Indexed as: Malek v. Mountain City Housing Co-operative Inc.
Appearances
Simon Malek, Applicant Self-represented
Mountain City Housing Co-operative Inc., Respondent Richard Campbell, Counsel
Introduction
1The applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against him in housing because of family status contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). By Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal directed that the matter be scheduled for a summary hearing by teleconference.
2The summary hearing process is described in Rule 19A of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure as well as the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Summary Hearing Requests. The purpose of a summary hearing is to consider, early in the proceeding, whether an application should be dismissed in whole or in part because there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed.
3For the reasons set out below, I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant will be able to establish a link between the respondent's alleged actions and the ground of discrimination alleged in the Application.
Factual Background
4The applicant and his wife lived in the respondent housing co-operative from 2005 to 2010, at which time the applicant was required to move out because he was subject to a recognizance that prohibited him to from being within 100 metres of the building. His membership in the co-operative was rescinded at that time. Sometime that year, the applicant's wife, whose membership was maintained, moved to a smaller unit within the co-operative.
5It is not clear when the recognizance was lifted, but, the applicant and his wife were reconciled and sometime in 2012 he started visiting her at the unit. They sought and obtained visitor status for him from the respondent. In mid-2013, the applicant sought membership status as he decided to move back into the unit. The respondent denied his membership application on the basis of his history with the respondent, including the events that led to the recognizance. He is allowed to reside at the unit full-time with his wife as a visitor, but does not have the rights afforded to members of the respondent.
Decision and Analysis
6The applicant alleges that the respondent intimidated and otherwise forced his wife to move under duress to the smaller unit in 2010, which means that the unit that they now live in not large enough for two persons to live. He also alleges that the July 2013 decision to deny him membership in the respondent is discrimination on the basis of marital status.
7As the respondent pointed out in its Response, the applicant does not have standing to make allegations on behalf of his wife. The provisions with respect to standing to bring an Application are found in s. 34 of the Code:
- (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, within one year after the last incident in the series.
(5) A person or organization, other than the Commission, may apply on behalf of another person to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2 if the other person,
(a) would have been entitled to bring an application under subsection (1); and
(b) consents to the application.
8Section 34 allows a person to bring an application on his own behalf if he believes that his rights have been infringed. It also allows a person to bring an application on behalf of another person if that person's rights have been allegedly infringed and that person consents to the applicant bringing the application on their behalf.
9In this case, the applicant does not purport to bring this Application on behalf of his wife as someone whose interests and rights are separate from his. His wife is not named as the applicant, nor did she execute the requisite consent. The allegations concerning the respondent's treatment of her (which the respondent denies) must be dismissed on the basis that the applicant does not have standing to bring them.
10I would note, parenthetically, that even if the applicant had met the requirements of s. 34(5) of the Code, his wife moved to the new unit in 2010 and he