Court File and Parties
Citation: Nemmour v. Dixon Hall Toronto, 2016 ONSC 1196 Court File No.: CV-15-536558 Date: 2016-02-18 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: Mohamed Nemmour, Applicant And: Dixon Hall Toronto and Harvey Stein, Respondents
Before: Pollak J.
Counsel: Mohamed Nemmour, self-represented Applicant M. Cornett, for the Respondents
Heard: January 11, 2016
Endorsement
1Justice J. Wilson ordered a summary trial of the issues in this Application before a bilingual judge. The parties agreed that the issues to be determined on this summary trial were the issues raised in the Application Record of the Applicant.
2The issue is whether the Applicant is entitled to the relief sought in the Application as follows:
"a) A declaration that Respondent [2] (Mr. Harvey Stein) is personally accountable for damages caused to the Applicant (physical and moral harm); while not complying with the legal rules an directly or indirectly (through employees under his authority) developing outlaw methods against the Applicant in a context of retaliation (including acts of cruelty: access to regular meals frequently denied); and so infringed the Applicant’s Constitutional rights guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (s_12,15).
b) A declaration that Respondent [1] (Dixon Hall Toronto), through its administration, knowingly failed to comply with its Legal obligations to protect the Applicant Legal rights as temporary resident of its ‘SchoolHouse Shelter: SHS’ by negligence; and is also legally responsible of damages inflicted to the Applicant; and
c) An order, injunctive or otherwise, against Respondent [2] to stop-prevent any new act contrary to the Legal rules or any other unlawful act against the Applicant, directly or indirectly during my legal stay at the SHS; and to comply with all the Legal provisions of the Toronto Shelter Standards that are mandatory and Legal basis for service delivery by SHS; and
d) An order, injunctive or otherwise, against Respondent [1] (Owner of ‘SchoolHouse Shelter’), and its employees to comply with Legal obligations and the common Law; and to seek a Court order before any new act (arbitrary decisions) directed against the Applicant during my legal stay at SHS (since I comply with all Legal rules and protocols, as I always did); and
e) An order for punitive damages in favour of the applicant, as to this Honourable Court considers just in the matter, in case the ongoing illegal threats against the Applicant materialize: retaliation mechanism that respondent [2] is carrying openly in bad faith, and indirectly by respondent [1], to exclude the Applicant from SHS services; because the Applicant is seeking Legal remedy and enforcement of Legal rules as for this application proceeding; and
(i) In such eventuality, any punitive damages granted by the Court will be directed to a charity, non-profit organization (Statement be part of a declaration, if the Honourable Court permits).
(ii) Respondent [2], as he engages his own responsibility in bad faith, to pay by himself any punitive damages decided against him (not by the SHS that he is manager, not by the Dixon Hall Organization that he is employee); and
f) Such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court may deem just and appropriate."
3The Applicant’s grounds for the relief are:
"a) Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Sections_(2),(12),(15) and (24);
b) Ontario Human Rights Code: Sections_(1),(8),(9)
c) The Toronto Shelter Standards (Municipality of Toronto): Sections_(1)-(9)
d) The Negligence Act, RSO 1990: Section_(1)"
4The defence of the Respondents is as follows:
They deny every allegation made in the Application Record.
Dixon Hall Toronto is a not-for-profit agency that provides programs for individuals living in poverty.
The Defendant, Harvey Stein, is an employee of Dixon Hall.
The Applicant/Plaintiff, Mr. Nemmour, became a resident of the Schoolhouse Shelter, Dixon Hall Toronto on April 1, 2015, where he continues to reside.
As part of the Schoolhouse Shelter policy, residents are provided with a bed and meals, including breakfast, a bag lunch (when requested), dinner and snack. In exchange, residents are required to meet with the housing team to work towards improving their housing situations.
Throughout this time, there were numerous problematic incidents between Mr. Nemmour and the Schoolhouse Shelter staff. Mr. Nemmour exhibited aggressive and demanding behaviour when food was offered.
Mr. Nemmour has repeatedly refused to engage or speak with staff, except our Harm Reduction Worker, whom he had me with initially upon his intake to the Schoolhouse shelter, but has not met with since. Mr. Nemmour has refused to meet with our Housing Worker to work towards improving his housing situation, requirement for all shelter users under the Toronto Shelter Standards Policy.
Mr. Nemmour’s claims are without merit and this action should be dismissed, with costs.
5Justice Wilson ordered that Mr. Nemmour’s affidavit supporting his Application would be his evidence in chief. Mr. Nemmour was cross-examined by counsel for the Defendants. No further evidence was presented by Mr. Nemmour.
6The affidavit evidence of the Defendant Harvey Stein was ordered to be his examination in chief.
7Mr. Nemmour cross-examined Mr. Stein. No further evidence was presented by the Defendants.
8The Defendant, Dixon Hall Toronto, is a nonprofit agency that owns and operates the SchoolHouse shelter. Mr. Nemmour has been a resident at the shelter since April 1, 2014 and continues to be a resident of the shelter at the time of trial. Mr. Nemmour alleges that since sometime in April, 2015 he has been subjected to hostile, improper bullying behaviour by shelter staff, primarily through the staffs’ refusal to provide him with clean linens and food. Mr. Nemmour alleges that some of the shelter's staff are attempting to bully him to stop his formal protest that he is doing through running/walking marathons at Queen's Park. Mr. Nemmour’s evidence focused on the fact that he had made several complaints in this regard to management at the shelter. He focused on his view that his complaints were not taken seriously or properly investigated by shelter representatives.
9The Defendants deny these allegations and have introduced evidence with respect to the attempts that were made to meet with Mr. Nemmour to deal with his complaint. Their evidence was that Mr. Nemmour repeatedly made himself unavailable to meet with representatives of the shelter and that they did act reasonably under all of the circumstances. The Defendants further introduced evidence that the shelter staff had difficulty with Mr. Nemmour because he was aggressive, demanding and refused to follow shelter rules.
10The Defendants submit that there is no evidentiary or legal basis for the Court to find that Mr. Nemmour is entitled to any of the remedies he seeks. I agree with the submissions of the Defendants that Mr. Nemmour has not provided this Court with the necessary evidence to support his allegations that the Defendants are attempting to prevent him from carrying on his demonstrations. Further, the Defendants submit that Mr. Nemmour’s submission that the Defendants have infringed his s. 12 Charter rights by subjecting him to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment are not supported by proper evidence and legal argument. I also agree with this argument.
11With respect to Mr. Nemmour's allegation that the Defendants have violated his s. 15 Charter rights to equal treatment, the Court agrees with the submissions of the Defendants that there is no evidence to support his allegation that there has been such discrimination. The only allegation of Mr. Nemmour with respect to this discrimination is his reference to another resident in the shelter who he alleges used derogatory language against him. Such evidence does not support a cause of action between Mr. Nemmour and the Defendants for a breach of his Charter rights. I agree.
12The Court does not find that there is a proper evidentiary base established by Mr. Nemmour to support any finding that Dixon Hall Toronto or any of the Defendants have not complied with their obligations to Mr. Nemmour.
13Finally, I also agree with the Defendant’s submission that Mr. Nemmour’s allegation that his s. 2 Charter rights have been violated is not supported by any evidence. Mr. Nemmour has not advised the Court what his legal argument is in this regard. As Mr. Nemmour has not, in the Court's view, provided this Court with any evidence to support any of his factual allegations, the Court also finds that he is not entitled to any injunctive remedy or declaration as he has requested. Similarly, Mr. Nemmour is not entitled to any award of punitive damages as there is no evidence that there is any entitlement to such punitive damages.
14He is also not entitled to a declaration that the Defendant, Dixon Hall Toronto, was negligent. It should be noted that in this regard, Mr. Nemmour has not pleaded or alleged any compensatory damages which he alleges are caused by the negligent actions of the Defendants. The Court does not find that there is evidence to support any allegations by Mr. Nemmour of negligence against any of the Defendants.
15For all of the above-noted reasons, this Court finds that Mr. Nemmour's claims against the Defendants must be dismissed.
Costs
16The Defendants have been the successful parties. Should they wish to do so, they may make brief written submissions as follows:
The Defendants’ costs submissions must be delivered by 12:00 p.m. on February 26, 2016; and Mr. Nemmour's costs submissions must be delivered by 12:00 p.m. on March 11, 2016. In accordance with what the Rules provide, the submissions should not exceed three pages in length.
Pollak J.
Date: February 18, 2016