Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Gabriel Fono Applicant
-and-
City of Ottawa and Tim Tierney Respondents
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: August 16, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1098 Indexed as: Fono v. Ottawa (City)
Appearances
Gabriel Fono, Applicant Self-represented
City of Ottawa and Tim Tierney, Respondents David Patacairk, Counsel
Introduction
1The applicant filed an Application on May 4, 2015 alleging that the respondents discriminated against him because of race, colour and disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”).
Background
2The Application, as originally filed, named the “City of Ottawa” (the “City”), the Committee of Adjustment of [City] of Ottawa” (the “Committee”), and “Tim Tierney ward councillor” (the “Councillor”) as respondents. The Application appeared to identify the applicant’s failed attempts to obtain a minor variance from the City to increase his parking space on his Ottawa residential property. In response to directions from the Tribunal to complete his Application form, the applicant identified five other individual respondents, each a member of the Committee. On January 28, 2016, the applicant filed a Request to Withdraw allegations against those five individual respondents. His Request was unopposed and, on February 2, 2016, the Application was withdrawn against those respondents.
3In the narrative of the original Application, one of the allegations was that the remaining respondents would not support the applicant’s request to adjourn a rescheduled hearing before the Committee, and the Committee refused to grant an adjournment to the applicant who claimed he required more time to prepare for the hearing because of illness related to disability. Another allegation appeared to be that the City made it difficult for the applicant, who is of African descent, to create extra parking space on his property because one or more white neighbours complained about the parking. The applicant appeared to allege that the Councillor supported the white neighbour or neighbours because of their race, and influenced and mobilized the City’s staff against the applicant who sought a variance on the by-law affecting the parking space.
Notice of Intent to Dismiss
4On June 8, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the Application did not appear to raise an issue the Tribunal has jurisdiction to resolve given that the applicant appeared to be challenging the decision or outcome of an adjudicative process. That Notice invited the applicant to file submissions to address the jurisdiction issue.
Second Version of Application
5On September 8, 2015, instead of filing submissions, the applicant filed a second version of the Application. This second version named the City, the Committee, the Councillor and the other five personal respondents. It also cited the grounds of race, colour and disability, but provided a different narrative describing the alleged discrimination. The narrative began by describing how the applicant obtained a building permit to expand his single unit building to a 3-unit building in 2011, but the Councillor believed that the applicant should not have been granted the permit, and therefore started a campaign against the applicant, inviting all the neighbours to attend a presentation about the property and negatively biasing City staff against the applicant, apparently for creating parking that did not comply with a zoning by-law.
6The second version of the Application also described how the applicant provided the City with a list of examples of other properties which appeared to have parking that was not in compliance with the zoning by-law. The applicant asked the City how this was possible, but received no reply. He described how a neighbour complained about the applicant’s creation of parking space, and the Councillor promised to fight the applicant’s effort get a variance at the Committee and the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”). For those proceedings, the City provided a lawyer and a planner for the neighbours who were against the applicant’s non-conforming parking spot, but would not provide them for the applicant. The Councillor regularly reported to the neighbours about the case against the applicant. On the other hand, the Councillor and the City did nothing to update the applicant about any investigation of the apparent non-conformance of the parking spaces the applicant complained about with respect to other properties, and it does not appear that there was any prosecution of those property owners.
7The second version of the Application also described how the applicant’s tenant left garbage beside the street prematurely when vacating the unit, and the City put a warning on the applicant’s door instead of the tenant’s door.
8Finally, the second version of the Application described how the applicant’s 74-year-old tenant asked for help from the Councillor to keep her parking spot, but the Councillor refused to help her because she was not a property owner, and because she was associated with the applicant’s property.
9The narrative concluded with the statement that the applicant was not challenging the OMB or Committee’s decisions, but instead he was complaining that he was not treated as well as