Zuhail Khan v. The Access Point, 2016 HRTO 1387

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Zuhail Khan

Applicant

-and-

The Access Point

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: October 26, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1387

Indexed as: Khan v. The Access Point

APPEARANCES

Zuhail Khan, Applicant

Self-represented

The Access Point, Respondent

Karen Mann, Representative

introduction

1The applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against him in housing because of disability and receipt of public assistance contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2By Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal directed that the matter be scheduled for a summary hearing by teleconference. 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. In this instance, the focus is on whether the allegations set out in the Application amount to discrimination as prohibited by the Code.

3At the time the Tribunal directed a summary hearing, the respondent had not filed a Response. However, the respondent’s Director participated in the call and provided background information about its work, as well as specific information about its interactions with the applicant. The applicant disagreed with much of the information. Where there is disagreement, I have not relied on the contested information provided by the respondent.

4For the reasons set out below, I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant has established that the respondent’s alleged actions are discrimination prohibited by the Code. That is, I find that the Tribunal is without jurisdiction to consider this Application.

decision and analysis

5The applicant lives in Toronto, but is unable to find housing to meet his needs as a person with significant mental illnesses (and other issues) and is forced to reside in a variety of shelters and hotel rooms. The respondent is a program administered by two agencies, Loft Community Services and Toronto North Support Services. Its purpose is to link persons with serious mental health or addictions issues to its network of 65 providers of supportive housing.

6The applicant applied for housing through the respondent and was put on a waiting list in 2012. He encountered difficulties with the criminal justice system in 2013, which made him eligible to be put on a different waiting list. The respondent states that there was some difficulty with the paperwork submitted, which resulted in him not going on the second list at the time. This seems to be disputed by the applicant. In any event, he was eventually put on that second list retroactive to 2013.

7It is common ground between the parties that the applicant has not been placed in housing despite being on the two lists for four and three years, respectively. It is also common ground that the applicant was shown an apartment in North York in March 2016, but the provider did not deem him to have the necessary supports to live in that unit. In any event, the applicant states he requires an apartment downtown because that is where his services are offered, and he is claustrophobic, making it impossible for him to use transit.

8Both parties agree that there is a waitlist. The applicant states he was initially told there was a three- to six-month waitlist. He also stated that he was told that the wait times were one or two years. In any event, the applicant states that the wait times he has experienced are unacceptable, beyond any time line he was given and that other people put on the waiting list after him have been placed in housing.

9The respondent does not dispute that the waiting list is long. It states that this is a function of the inadequate supply of supportive housing in Toronto. It also states that some people may be placed out of order for a myriad of factors. For example, there is more shared housing available, so someone willing to take that type of housing might be placed in advance of the applicant, who requires an independent unit.

10It would appear that the applicant disputes the respondent’s explanation. However, he has not alleged that the respondent takes into account discriminatory factors when making placement determinations. His argument appears to be that he is a person with a serious disability, who requires access to housing. The fact that the respondent has not provided this housing is, in and of itself, discriminatory.

11The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to claims of discrimination and reprisal under the Code. The fact that an applicant is a member of a protected group (in this case, a person with a disability) who experiences disadvantageous treatment (in this case, not getting the housing he needs) is not sufficient to establish discrimination. Specifically, the Code requires that the protected characteristic was a factor in the disadvantageous treatment. In other words, that the respondent’s treatment of the applicant was because, in whole or in part, the applicant had a disability.

12However, in this case, the applicant cannot say that he has been denied the housing service offered by the respondent because he has a disability; it was this very disability that made him eligible for the respondent’s services in the first place. The applicant has not pointed to differential treatment on the basis of any protected ground under the Code. The applicant alleges that the respondent broke its own rules and laws, but the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to decide whether this is true in the absence of an assertion that it broke them in a manner that violated the Code. See Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115.

order

13It was clear from the summary hearing that the four-year delay in getting housing has been devastating for the applicant given his desperate circumstances. However, for all the reasons set out above, his allegations are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide and I must dismiss the Application.