Shatkin v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2017 HRTO 1372

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Semyon Shatkin

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Community Housing Corporation

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Bruce Best

Date: October 17, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1372

Indexed as: Shatkin v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation

APPEARANCES

Semyon Shatkin, Applicant

Vit Shatkin, Representative

Toronto Community Housing Corporation, Respondent

Gordon Steinberg, Paralegal

Introduction

1This Application, as filed, alleges discrimination with respect to housing because of receipt of public assistance contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”). From reviewing the narrative of the Application, and as clarified at the summary hearing, the applicant is also alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of age and disability, association under s. 12, and reprisal contrary to s. 8 of the Code.

2By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to address whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that some or all of the allegations were untimely, or whether there was no reasonable prospect that the Application would succeed. The matter was heard by conference call on July 24, 2017.

3Based on the submissions made on the conference call, I cannot find that this Application has no reasonable prospect of success. However, the Application and the Reply as filed do not sufficiently set out the applicant’s allegations of Code-based discrimination, as further articulated on the conference call. As such, the applicant is directed to clarify his allegations in writing, including an explanation of why the specific incidents he alleges amount to discrimination under the Code.

Factual Background

4The applicant lives in a seniors’ building operated by the respondent, and pays rent geared to income. The applicant has, at various times, been the tenant representative for his building, and further indicates that he has been a vocal critic of building management.

5Much of the narrative in the Application as filed addresses disputes respecting the applicant’s rent, which varies based on his income as calculated under the Housing Services Act, 2011, S.O. 2011, c 6, Sch. 1 (“HSA”). At the hearing, however, the applicant clarified that he was not directly challenging any of the decisions respecting the calculation of his rent. Rather, the primary concern was with respect to how he was treated following these disputes.

6The essence of the applicant’s allegations is that he and his fellow tenants have been treated poorly and are not provided with proper services because they are receiving public assistance through rent subsidies, and that they are taken advantage of because of a belief that they will not stand up for their rights because of their age and health problems. He further alleges that because he does stand up for his rights and the rights of his fellow elderly tenants, that he has been targeted by building management, and that this amounts to reprisal under the Code.

7In particular, the applicant argues that building staff resent the fact that he has challenged them or called them on their failure to maintain the building, and that they were looking for a way to evict him. He specifically alleges that when he was hospitalized for an extended period of time in early 2016, building management sent a notice to terminate his tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006 c.17 (“RTA”) based on arrears of rent that largely arose over a year earlier as a result of the dispute over the recalculation of his rent. He suggested that the timing of his being served with this eviction notice may have been to take advantage of his absence from his unit, and the expectation that he would not receive and respond to the notice within the timelines required under the RTA.

8It is not the purpose of a summary hearing to make a finding on any of the allegations. Rather, the question is to determine whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success.

9The evidence the applicant proposes to prove these allegations is primarily through his interaction with building management, and the actions that he claims have been taken against him for his advocacy. It may be that the applicant will ultimately not be able to establish an evidentiary link between any of the incidents he describes and any Code ground. The retribution he alleges may, even if found to be true, be based simply on his being a “thorn in the side” of building management, and he may not be able to establish that the treatment he has received was intended because he was an advocate challenging discriminatory treatment of elderly tenants of the building, which would be required in order to establish reprisal under s. 8 of the Code. He may similarly not be able to establish that receipt of public assistance, age, or disability was a factor in any of the adverse treatment he, or the other tenants for whom he was advocating, faced.

10However, though it may well be difficult for the applicant to succeed, I cannot say at this point that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success. The Application may proceed in the Tribunal process.

11As noted above, the summary hearing in this matter was directed largely because in the Application and Reply as filed, the Code basis for the Application is far from clear, and it appears rather to be a challenge to the recalculation of rent and other disputes between the applicant and the respondent for which there did not appear to be a connection to a Code ground. The applicant is directed, within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision, to provide the Respondent and the Tribunal a revised version of his allegations, including specific details of how they relate to a Code ground. The Respondent shall, within 35 days of receiving the amended Application, deliver and file a revised Response. The Applicant may file a revised Reply within 21 days of receiving the revised Response.

12The parties shall further, in their submissions, indicate whether they are prepared to engage in the Tribunal’s mediation process.

Order

13The Application may continue in the Tribunal process.

14The applicant shall file a revised Application, setting out his allegations and how they relate to a specific Code ground, within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

15The respondent shall file a revised Response within 35 days of receiving the revised Application.

16The applicant may file a revised Reply within 21 days of receiving the revised Response.

17The parties shall, in their submissions, indicate whether they are prepared to engage in the Tribunal’s mediation process, in which case the Registrar will schedule a mediation in the normal course.

18I am not seized.