Dangubic v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1462, 2016 HRTO 731

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Andrej Dangubic Applicant

-and-

Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1462 Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: Sheri Price

Date: June 1, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 731

Indexed as: Dangubic v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1462

APPEARANCES

Andrej Dangubic, Applicant Self-represented

Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1462, Respondent Gareth Stackhouse, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application under s.34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) in which the applicant, who owns a unit in the building operated by the respondent, alleges that the respondent condominium corporation discriminated against him because of his and/or his girlfriend’s race, place of origin and/or ethnic origin, contrary to the Code.

2The applicant self-identifies as Serbian and indicates that his girlfriend is from the Philippines.

3By Case Assessment Direction dated January 19, 2016, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be convened pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure to determine whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed. In its Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal advised the parties that the Tribunal would dismiss the Application if, following the summary hearing, it found that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

4The summary hearing was held by teleconference on May 24, 2016. During the summary hearing, the applicant was given an opportunity to explain how he could prove his allegations that the respondents infringed his rights under the Code.

Background

5On July 25, 2015, the applicant rented the respondent’s party room so that he and his girlfriend could have a party for their friends. The applicant alleges that, several times during the party, a female resident of the building came to the party room to complain about the noise. The applicant alleges that he was doing nothing wrong and that he invited the woman to call the police if she felt there was a problem. However, she refused to do so. Instead, the female resident complained to the respondent’s property manager.

6The applicant alleges that the respondent’s property manager accepted the female resident’s version of events without even asking the applicant about his side of the story. The applicant alleges that even though the respondent had absolutely no proof that the applicant had done anything wrong, it restricted him from using the party room in future. In this regard, the applicant points to a July 29, 2015 letter he received from the respondent’s property manager, which states in relevant part:

At the direction of the board of directors for “TSCC 1462”, I am writing to review the incidents that occurred during the rental of the Party Room on July 25, 2015, specifically the noise that caused numerous resident complaints and the breach of the rules detailed in the Party Room Agreement.

All residents who book the Party Room are obliged to follow the rules. Section H specifies “no live entertainment, disc jockey, live band, musical instruments, commercial sound equipment, microphone or P.A. System shall be permitted to be used.” Our security team is responsible to enforce any breach of these rules and to eliminate any excessive disturbance to the residents of our community.

As a result of the incident, the issue was brought to the attention of our Board of Directors to determine if the security deposit would be forfeited, as a result of the breach of rules. After careful consideration at the Board Meeting July 28, 2015, it was agreed to return the deposit to your unit with the understanding that should you elect to rent the party room in the future, any breach of the rules would forfeit your deposit and restrict future reservations of the common elements…

7In his Application, the applicant alleges that the respondent mistreated him by stating that he had breached the party room rules without any evidence to this effect and then by restricting his future use of the party room. The applicant alleges that such mistreatment was linked to his and/or his girlfriend’s race, place of origin and/or ethnic origin and therefore constitutes discrimination, contrary to the Code.

Analysis and decision

8Although the respondent indicated during the summary hearing that it denies many, if not all, of the applicant’s allegations, it has not yet been required to file a Response to the Application. Accordingly, the facts upon which this decision are based are the facts as asserted by the applicant.

9It became very clear during the summary hearing that the applicant has numerous complaints about the respondent condominium corporation. At the very outset of the summary hearing, the applicant stated the issue raised in the Application regarding the events of July 2015 is only one example of the mistreatment he has experienced at the hands of the respondent condominium corporation.

10However, as I explained during the summary hearing, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with general claims of unfair or even illegal treatment. The Tribunal only has jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Code, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of the grounds set out in the Code, in this case, the applicant’s race, place of origin and/or ethnic origin.

11As noted above, the applicant alleges that he was treated in a disadvantageous manner when the respondent accepted as valid another resident’s complaint that the applicant had been too noisy when renting the party room on July 25, 2015, without any evidence to substantiate the complaint and without giving the applicant an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

12Assuming without finding that the applicant could establish in evidence that the respondent mistreated him in this manner, the issue is whether the applicant has any reasonable prospect of linking such alleged mistreatment to his or his girlfriend’s race, ethnic origin and/or place of origin. Although the applicant did not tick off the boxes that would indicate on the Application form that he was alleging discrimination based on his association with his girlfriend, because of her race, place of origin, and/or ethnic origin, since this appears to be part of the applicant’s discrimination claim, I have addressed it, along with the claim that the applicant was discriminated against because of his own race, place of origin and/or ethnic origin.

13During the summary hearing, the applicant was given an opportunity to explain how he intends to prove that the respondent’s reaction to a fellow resident’s noise complaint about the applicant was linked to the applicant’s and/or his girlfriend’s race, place of origin or ethnic origin.

14By way of response, the applicant submits that the reason the respondent’s property manager accepted the female resident’s complaint about him as valid, in the absence of any evidence that the applicant had done anything wrong, is because the resident in question and the property manager are from “the same group”, that is, they are not immigrants to Canada like the applicant. During the hearing, the applicant also stated that the respondent treats owners like himself who are immigrants as if they are “monkeys who fell from the trees” and know nothing about their rights. The applicant further submits that the respondent knows that he is an immigrant to Canada because he speaks English as a second language and with an accent. The applicant submits that it is also readily apparent that his girlfriend is from the Phillipines.

15Having considered the submissions of the parties and the materials before me, I find that the applicant has no reasonable prospect of proving that the respondent’s alleged mistreatment regarding the July 25, 2015 noise complaint was linked in in whole or in part to the applicant’s and/or his girlfriend’s race, place of origin or ethnic origin.

16The applicant may honestly believe that the respondent’s response to the July 2015 noise complaint was linked to the fact that the applicant is an immigrant from Serbia and/or his girlfriend is from the Philippines. However, it is well established that the applicant’s belief that the respondent discriminated against him because of a prohibited ground of discrimination is not evidence that this occurred. It is not open to the Tribunal to make a finding of discrimination based only on the applicant’s suspicions or beliefs. In order for a discrimination claim to have any reasonable prospect of success, there must be a basis beyond mere speculation or bald assertions that the unfair treatment was because of one of the grounds in the Code: Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389, at para. 17. The Tribunal cannot find that the respondent discriminated against the applicant unless there is evidence that would allow the Tribunal itself to link the mistreatment complained of in the Application to the applicant’s race, place of origin and or ethnic origin.

17In this case, there are no facts alleged by the applicant that, if proven to be true, could provide a basis for the Tribunal to find that the respondent’s treatment of the applicant was connected to the applicant’s immigrant status or the fact that he is from Serbia in whole or in part. The applicant’s allegation that the respondent’s actions were linked to his race, place of origin and ethnic origin is really in the nature of a bald assertion, which is insufficient to ground a discrimination claim under the Code. Nor are there any facts alleged that, if proven to be true, could be a basis for the Tribunal to make a finding that the respondents mistreated the applicant (or his girlfriend) because his girlfriend is an immigrant and/or from the Philippines. The applicant alleges that the respondent sees owners and/or residents who are immigrants in negative terms (i.e. like “monkeys who fell from the trees”). However, there are no facts alleged that, if proven, could provide an evidentiary basis for the Tribunal to find that the respondent held such views and/or mistreated the applicant based on such a perception.

18As for the applicant’s contention that the respondent knew that he and his girlfriend came from countries other than Canada, this is not a basis upon which the Tribunal might find that the respondent discriminated against the applicant based on race, place of origin and/or ethnic origin. The mere fact that the respondents might have known that the applicant and/or his girlfriend were immigrants and/or came from countries other than Canada is not a basis upon which the Tribunal could conclude that any mistreatment of the applicant and/or his girlfriend was “because of” a prohibited ground.

19Likewise, the fact that the respondent’s property manager and the female resident who complained about the applicant’s July 2015 party are both not immigrants to Canada is not a basis, in and of itself, upon which the Tribunal might conclude that the manner in which the respondent dealt with the resident’s noise complaint was linked to race, place of origin and/or ethnic origin.

20For the above reasons, I find that the applicant’s discrimination claim has no reasonable prospect of success. The Application is dismissed accordingly.