HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Francis Aboagye

Applicant

-and-

Region of Peel – Human Services Housing Operations and Management Services Peel Living

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: November 7, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1442

Indexed as: Aboagye v. Region of Peel – Human Services Housing Operations and Management Services Peel Living

APPEARANCES

Francis Aboagye, Applicant

Self-represented

Region of Peel – Human Services Housing Operations and Management Services Peel Living, Respondent

Martin P. Zarnett, Counsel

Introduction

1The purpose of this Decision is to decide whether the Application should be dismissed on a preliminary basis because it has no reasonable prospect of success. The parties attended a summary hearing where they had the opportunity to make oral submissions and present documents and cases, which addressed this issue. I have decided to dismiss the Application. The following are my reasons for the dismissal.

BACKGROUND

2The respondent is a social housing provider. In 2001, the applicant began living in a rental unit which is managed by the respondent. In 2015, the respondent filed an application with the Landlord and Tenant Board which sought an order to terminate the tenancy and evict the applicant because of his failure to pay rent that he owed to the respondent.

3On February 19, 2016, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleged that the respondent discriminated against him with respect to occupancy of accommodation because of his race, colour, ethnic origin, and receipt of public assistance.

4Specifically, he alleged the following:

• The building superintendent frequently slipped 24-hour notices under his door, and inspected his unit the following day. Over the past year, the superintendent also attempted to conduct three “annual” inspections of his unit.

• When he was in the parking garage, the superintendent, sometimes in pyjamas, always rushed towards him holding a ultra-violet cathode ray scanning device.

• The building management installed surveillance satellites on top of the building, converted the unit across from him into a surveillance monitoring room, and recruited several female residents to follow him everywhere. The female residents made unwanted advances towards him in an attempt to get him charged with sexual-related offences.

• The building management installed secret cameras in his unit. When he disconnected such a device in his fire detector, the building superintendent showed up at his unit with a man in a network security uniform.

• His complaints to the building management about these incidents were either ignored, or the building manager told him to contact the police.

5In his Application, the applicant identified as a Black person who is originally from West Africa, and a recipient of subsidized housing. In section B6 (“Explain why you believe you were discriminated against because of your race, colour… or ethnic origin”), he stated that the above incidents only happened because he is Black, and was therefore stereotyped as being a criminal. He did not explain why he believes that he was being discriminated against based on receipt of public assistance.

6On February 25, 2016, the Landlord and Tenant Board issued an order that the applicant vacate his unit by March 15, 2016. The applicant did not abide by this order.

7On April 5, 2016, the Superior Court of Justice issued the applicant a Notice to Vacate his unit by April 20, 2016, failing which the Sheriff would carry out the order.

8On April 13, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Interim Remedy with this Tribunal to “freeze" his eviction.

9On April 15, 2016, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2016 HRTO 489, which denied the applicant’s Request for Interim Remedy, and directed that a summary hearing be held to decide whether the Application should be dismissed on a preliminary basis because it has no reasonable prospect of success.

10The summary hearing by teleconference took place on November 1, 2016.

ANALYSIS

11The Application relates to sections 2 and 9 of the Code, which provide:

2. (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance.

(2) Every person who occupies accommodation has a right to freedom from harassment by the landlord or agent of the landlord or by an occupant of the same building because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance.

9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part.

12Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides for a summary hearing, following which an application may be dismissed, in whole or in part, if the Tribunal finds that there is no reasonable prospect that the application or part of the application will succeed. The approach to deciding whether an application has a reasonable prospect of success following a summary hearing was explained as follows in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994 (“Dabic”) at paras. 8-9:

In some cases, the issue at the summary hearing may be whether, assuming all the allegations in the application to be true, it has a reasonable prospect of success. In these cases, the focus will generally be on the legal analysis and whether what the applicant alleges may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation.

In other cases, the focus of the summary hearing may be on whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated. Often, such cases will deal with whether the applicant can show a link between an event and the grounds upon which he or she makes the claim. The issue will be whether there is a reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to him or her can show a link between the event and the alleged prohibited ground.

13The Tribunal does not have the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness. For an Application to continue in the Tribunal’s process, 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. See Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389 at para. 17.

14The focus at the summary hearing was on the second branch of the Dabic test, namely, whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent discriminated against him with respect to occupancy of accommodation because of his race, colour, ethnic origin, and receipt of public assistance.

15In his submissions, the applicant argued that his Application has a reasonable prospect of success by essentially repeating what was in his Application.

16In my view, the Application has no reasonable prospect of success. The alleged incidents do not have an air of reality, and, beyond speculation, he pointed to very little evidence that he has or that is reasonably available to him that could show a link between these alleged incidents and any Code grounds. His perception of discrimination is not evidence. It is not open to the Tribunal to make a finding of discrimination based on the applicant’s feelings or beliefs. See Hui v. EPM Global Services, 2011 HRTO 2121 at para. 14.

17The Application is therefore dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

ORDER

18The Application is dismissed.