Dwyre v. The Parc Anderson Park Lease Non-Profit Corporation, 2017 HRTO 1709

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Timothy Dwyre Applicant

-and-

The Parc Anderson Park Lease Non-Profit Corporation and Manuel Pires Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: December 28, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1709 Indexed as: Dwyre v. The Parc Anderson Park Lease Non-Profit Corporation

APPEARANCES

Timothy Dwyre, Applicant Self-represented

The Parc Anderson Park Lease Non-Profit Corporation and Manuel Pires, Respondents John E. Summers, Counsel

1The applicant is 47 years of age and a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. This Application arises from a housing search the applicant conducted as a result of being relocated. The applicant was denied the opportunity to consider a home at Anderson Park, a community designed for people who are age 50 and over. The applicant alleges that this distinction is discriminatory.

2A hearing into this Application commenced on October 17, 2017. During the hearing I explained to the applicant that the legal test for discrimination requires him to demonstrate some disadvantage flowing from the respondent’s conduct. As we explored this issue it became apparent that the applicant did not have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he was disadvantaged by the rules adopted by the respondents. The applicant was not, for example, looking for a life lease and probably would not have attempted to see the property if he had been aware of this fact from the beginning. I gave the parties an opportunity to meet privately and discuss a possible resolution. I also advised the applicant that I would consider a request from him to withdraw. In my opinion, this non-adversarial approach to working through the legal issues offered the best opportunity for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of this Application. (s. 40 and 41 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”))

3Two days after the hearing, on October 19, 2017, the applicant filed a request to withdraw the Application.

4The respondents oppose the withdrawal. The respondents states that they have spent a considerable amount of money on legal fees and invested a considerable amount of time in responding to the Application. The respondents state that it is important for the community that a decision is rendered so that the respondents will have a statement from the Tribunal regarding the issue of discrimination in this context.

5In order to provide the respondents with a decision insulating the housing project from claims of age discrimination in the future, the Tribunal would have to hold a full merits hearing and receive substantial evidence from the respondents explaining the merits of its defence. The decision the respondents are seeking would have a broad general effect going beyond the individual circumstances of this case. I am not prepared to hold a public interest hearing into this issue. The respondents may achieve their aim by applying to the Ontario Human Rights Commission to obtain a designation of the housing project as a special program under section 14 of the Code.

6Given all of the circumstances, I accept the applicant’s withdrawal.

7Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.