McLeod v. Winter, 2015 HRTO 667

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

John McLeod

Applicant

-and-

Mary Winter

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: May 21, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 667 Indexed as: McLeod v. Winter

APPEARANCES

John McLeod, Applicant Self-represented

Mary Winter, Respondent Self-represented

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to accommodation because of age and family status contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant is a man in his 20’s who was interested in buying a unit in a trailer park. The personal respondent is a real estate agent who was the listing agent for a unit in the trailer park.

Background

3In March 2013, the applicant called the personal respondent about a listing. She told him about the property but, upon learning his age, advised him that the trailer park would not approve an offer to purchase from the applicant because the trailer park is limited to people who are over 50 years of age. The applicant and his wife followed up with the trailer park and this information was confirmed.

4The applicant filed an Application naming the trailer park and the personal respondent as respondents. The Tribunal scheduled a mediation session that was attended by the applicant and the owners of the trailer park. The personal respondent did not find out about the mediation at the time because she had moved. At the mediation, the applicant settled with the trailer park. The Application was continued against the personal respondent because she had not settled with the applicant.

5The Tribunal scheduled a hearing for May 19, 2015. The applicant and the personal respondent attended the hearing.

6At the hearing, the parties provided evidence about the nature of their interactions and the respondent provided information about her professional relationship with the trailer park and the people who are selling a unit.

7The personal respondent advised that the trailer park owns the land. Individuals own units but not the land. The land is leased from the trailer park by the individuals who own the units. The units can be sold by the individuals who own them but the trailer park must approve any offer to purchase. She said that the trailer park is designed primarily for “snow birds”. It is closed for the winter months and most people move to Florida for that period. The personal respondent confirmed that the trailer park rules are that only people over 50 can own a unit. She said that there is another section of the park that is open to people of all ages and families, but it is only open for six months of the year.

8At the hearing, the parties had somewhat different recollections about the details of their communication in March 2013, which consisted of one telephone conversation. However, they both agreed that the personal respondent told the applicant that she could show him the unit that was for sale but that there was no point in doing so because the seller was not allowed to sell a unit to someone under 50 and ultimately, the trailer park would not accept any offer to buy from someone under 50.

9In addition, the trailer park limits tenants to two adults per unit and does not permit children. Although at the time the applicant and his wife did not have children they were planning to have a family. This is the basis for the applicant’s allegation of discrimination on the basis of family status.

10The applicant was asked how the personal respondent discriminated against him, as opposed to the trailer park, with whom he settled. The applicant said that in his view, as a real estate agent, the personal respondent had a duty to ensure that any transaction that she was involved in was legal and in accordance with the law, including the Code. By analogy, the applicant suggested that it would clearly be discriminatory if a seller told a real estate agent not to sell a property to a Black person. He suggested that in that scenario, the real estate agent would have an obligation to refuse to be a party to the discrimination. Since the Code prohibits discrimination on the basis of age and family status in the same way that it prohibits discrimination on the basis of race and colour, in this case, the personal respondent had a duty to refuse to be a party to the discriminatory practice of refusing to sell to people under 50 or people with children.

11The personal respondent said that she is aware that there are other trailer parks that are also designed as seniors only. She submitted that in this case, her role was limited to explaining her understanding of the rules of the trailer park to the applicant so that he would be aware of the situation. She pointed out that she had no involvement in making the rules but only in telling the applicant what the rules were. She emphasized that she was prepared to show the unit to the applicant and that he indicated that he would call her back to follow-up but he did not call back. The applicant confirmed this. He followed-up with the trailer park instead, which confirmed its rules to him and his wife.

Analysis and conclusions

12On the basis of the evidence before me, I find that the personal respondent did not discriminate against the applicant contrary to the Code. Assuming that the rules against selling to people under 50 and prohibiting children in the units were contrary to the Code, the real estate agent was not involved in developing or applying those rules. Furthermore, her client was not the party that created or applied the rules, but a unit owner who was subject to the age limit and no children rules of the trailer park. All the real estate agent did was to tell the applicant about the rules so that he would be aware of the situation. The parties agree that the personal respondent did not refuse to show the applicant the unit that was for sale. She only told him that there was not really any point in him seeing the unit because of the rules. The applicant and his wife then followed-up with the trailer park and confirmed the information that the personal respondent had given him. He did not then follow-up with the personal respondent about seeing the unit. The applicant then filed this Application and settled with the trailer park.

13The evidence shows that if there was any discrimination involved, it was not on the part of the personal respondent. In these circumstances, the personal respondent did not infringe the applicant's Code-protected rights and the Application against the personal respondent is dismissed on that basis.