HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Robert Makobero
Applicant
-and-
City of Toronto
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard
Indexed as: Makobero v. City of Toronto
APPEARANCES
Robert Makobero, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1This is an Application filed on January 9, 2017, alleging discrimination with respect to housing because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). During the summary hearing, the applicant also alleged discrimination because of his place of origin.
2By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) issued May 15, 2017, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed. The CAD specified that the Tribunal would hold a summary hearing because:
a. It appears that the applicant may be unable to prove that there is a connection between what the respondent is alleged to have done, and the ground of disability cited in the Application. That is, although the applicant may believe that the conduct of the respondent is connected to the ground, it is not clear that there is evidence available to the applicant to prove the connection. The focus of this inquiry is on the evidence the applicant has or may be able to obtain.
b. The issue the applicant is raising does not appear to fall under the Code. The focus of this inquiry is on the legal basis for the applicant’s claim and whether or not there is any reasonable prospect the allegations may amount to a Code violation.
3The Tribunal held the summary hearing by conference call on October 23, 2017. The respondent did not participate. Consistent with usual Tribunal practice, the Tribunal waited 30 minutes. The respondent was not in attendance after 30 minutes and the Tribunal proceeded with the hearing.
Factual Background
4The respondent, the City of Toronto (“the City”), maintains a centralized waitlist of households waiting for rent-geared-to-income (“RGI”) housing in the City of Toronto.
The RGI Housing Waitlist System
5Although the respondent did not participate in the summary hearing, it provided in its Response the following description of the RGI Housing waitlist system. The information is presented to provide context of the process. At the summary hearing, the applicant did not argue that the RGI Housing waitlist system is discriminatory.
6The Housing Services Act. 2011, S.O. 2011, c. 6, Sch. 1 (the "Act") creates rules of eligibility for the provision of RGI assistance in the province. The City receives applications for RGI assistance from new applicants, existing RGI households who wish to move to another housing provider, and market rent households in social housing applying for RGI assistance.
7In the application for housing, an applicant provides information to determine RGI eligibility. Once an application is approved, the applicant's household is placed on the centralized waitlist.
8Pursuant to s. 47 of the Act, a system of rules is created to determine which households on the centralized waiting list are provided with housing as units become available. This system includes priority rules, which create priority categories on the waiting list for applicants who meet the criteria for a priority category.
9Pursuant to s. 54 of regulation O.Reg 367/11 made under the Act, the highest priority on the waitlist is a household with a member who is the victim of abuse.
10The City has also created the following priorities:
a. Priority category 2: Applicants from a household in which at least one person is terminally ill.
b. Priority category 3: Applicants who already have RGI housing, but who must reduce the size of their unit because it is no longer appropriate for the size of their household.
c. Rotational priority: One of every seven units that becomes available must be filled by a household that is “disadvantaged” (homeless person, child or children who have been removed from the home by Children’s Aid Society for lack of appropriate housing or applicants who are 16 or 17 years old at the time of the application).
11The general rule is that applicants on the centralized waitlist are ranked by the priority category, as described above, and, if no priority is applicable, by the date that they were found eligible for RGl assistance.
The Applicant’s Submissions
12The applicant, Mr. Makobero, applied for RGI housing on August 21, 2013. His application was accepted on August 30, 2013. He was placed on the centralized waitlist at that time. He explained that he was not at the time on a priority list.
13The applicant maintains that in February 2013, he found housing, but not through the RGI housing.
14The applicant states that he arrived in Canada in 2013 suffering from chronic depression following 20 years of living in a country with a civil war. The applicant explains that since July 2014, his depression has worsened largely because of alleged harassment and discrimination suffered in the housing complex he lives in.
15The applicant maintains that in November 2016, he filed a medical note with the respondent indicating that he has chronic depression and that he should be moved to a single person unit. The applicant stated at the summary hearing that the medical note also indicated that his mental health was worsening because of domestic abuse. The medical note reads as follows:
Mr. Makobero has been a patient of our health centre since March 2013. I have seen him through numerous stressors over that time period. Mr. Makobero has had a number of bouts of depression which have been linked to conflicts he has had with roommates in his currently living situation. I think it would be of tremendous benefit to him if he had the opportunity to live by himself. I am hoping that you will be able to help him with this request.
16The applicant maintains that the respondent has rejected his medical note or that it has not processed his file. He believes this is discrimination based on his disability and his place of origin. The applicant contends that the respondent did not request further information about the domestic abuse and has not provided him with information as to why his file has not been processed. The applicant says that he called the office two to three times in December 2016 and January 2017 and no one provided him with information as to why he remains on the waitlist but not on the priority list. The applicant maintains that he heard the respondent has provided housing to those who are not victims of abuse. The applicant notes however that he has no proof of this.
Analysis and Decision
17For the reasons set out below, I find that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.
18The nature of a summary hearing has been set out in Dabic v. Windsor Police Services, 2010 HRTO 1994 at paras. 7-9. The focus of this hearing is on whether, assuming all the allegations to be true, there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant can show a link between what happened to him and the prohibited ground of disability or place of origin.
19The Tribunal has stated on several occasions that it does not have a general power to deal with allegations of unfairness. See for example: Badvi v. Voyageur Transportation, 2011 HRTO 1319 at para. 6, and Watt v. Cambridge (City), 2014 HRTO 218 at para. 6. Discrimination generally involves an allegation of unfair treatment on the basis of one or more of the grounds under the Code, such as place of origin or disability. Unfair treatment is not discriminatory unless there is proof that one or more of these characteristics were a factor in the treatment the applicant experienced. It is readily acknowledged that various experiences of unfairness, not specifically defined as discrimination in the legal sense, can result in significant negative financial and emotional consequences to one degree or another.
20The test the Tribunal applies at this stage is whether the case has no reasonable prospect of success, which involves assuming the applicant’s version of events to be true, absent clear evidence to the contrary.
21The applicant applied through the RGI Housing process for a unit for a single person in August 21, 2013. He was placed on the waitlist and remains on the waitlist. The applicant has failed to point to any evidence or any evidence that may be reasonably available to him, that he was treated differently and adversely compared to other applicants in the RGI Housing process and that his disability or place of origin was a factor in the way he was treated.
22The applicant alleges that the respondent knew about his immigration status and treated him differently because of that. The applicant’s belief that his place of origin was a factor in the way the respondent treated him or in the way his application has been handled is mere speculation and cannot proceed.
23In addition, the applicant could point to no evidence that the respondent took into account his alleged disability in the way it treated him or in the way it handled his application. Disability is not a priority in the context of the RGI Housing waitlist process and there is no evidence to suggest that disability was a factor in the assessment of his request for priority status as a victim of abuse.
24The applicant did not plead that the respondent refused his application for priority because of his sex. I find that in any event he would be unable to point to any evidence that his gender or sex could have been a factor in the way he was treated or his application was handled. The applicant filed documents describing the eligibility factors for inclusion in the priority status for victims of abuse and the application form related to that priority status. These documents make no mention of sex or gender and there is no evidence that sex or gender would have been a factor in the respondent’s decision.
25Finally, the applicant has not identified any evidence that could suggest that the waitlist is discriminatory or has an unintended discriminatory outcome. The applicant has also not shown that he experienced a real burden or disadvantage because of his disability or place of origin as a result of his application through the RGI Housing waitlist; he remains on the waitlist.
26I find that the applicant’s perception that he was discriminated against based on disability or place of origin is mere speculation and as the Tribunal has consistently stated, there must be a basis beyond mere speculation and accusations to proceed with an allegation.
Order
27For the reasons outlined above, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of December, 2017.
“Signed by”
Josée Bouchard
Vice-chair