|
Human Rights (Ont) - Discrimination - Disability. McCready v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation
In McCready v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a motion to extend time to commence an RTA s.210 appeal.
A social housing tenant unsuccessfully argues disability bias and lack of fairness:[9] The tenant’s second argument is that the Board likely had “some unconscious but well-meaning bias” against her because she was disabled and unable to appear competent. She argues that although she had been paying full rent plus an additional amount towards arrears since January 2024, the Board’s likely biased view of her led it to find her incapable of continuing to pay rent plus a payment arrangement. The tenant relies on “crip time,” which she explains is a concept reflecting the non-linear and protracted pace of progress for disabled individuals. She also underscores the progress she has made since January 2024 in consistently paying her rent and in pursuing various avenues that will increase her ability to obtain a job and to have additional supports to assist her.
[10] In her additional submissions, the tenant also states that her ability to participate in the June 2024 Board hearing was “severely limited” and that she did not formally request accommodation because unsupported disability affects communication and self-advocacy.
[11] I agree with the landlord that the tenant does not have a tenable appeal. My conclusions are not meant to undermine the struggles the tenant has faced, nor the efforts she is making to move forward. But the court’s task is not to assess the tenant’s challenges, intentions, or efforts in isolation. It is instead to review the decision of the Board for errors of law.
....
Bias/Procedural Fairness
[17] There is also no plausible likelihood the tenant will succeed in her submission that the Board was biased or breached procedural fairness. The tenant’s submission that the Board member was likely biased is a bald statement without factual basis. Establishing bias requires meeting a stringent standard. In this case, the Board provided detailed reasons for not permitting the tenant to proceed with a proposed repayment plan. These reasons included that the arrears owing were substantial and exceeded the Board’s monetary jurisdiction; the arrears of rent dated back more than 6 years; and the landlord had attempted to work with the tenant on multiple occasions but the arrears only seemed to increase after each repayment plan was entered into. In recognition of the tenant’s circumstances, the Board also found it would not be unfair to delay the termination of the tenancy. Considering the Board’s detailed reasons and the absence of a factual basis to demonstrate bias, there is no prospect of the tenant succeeding on this ground.
[18] The tenant also asserts she was denied procedural fairness because she was severely limited from participating in the June 3, 2024 hearing that led to the order she seeks to appeal. She states that at that time, she did not have a wheelchair and had only been receiving consistent income supports for six months. However, she does not dispute that she attended and participated in the hearing, which occurred by videoconference. She also acknowledges she did not raise any request for accommodation at the hearing. It does not appear that she raised any issue of procedural unfairness at the hearing, which means this argument would be raised for the first time on appeal. In all of the circumstances, there is no reasonable prospect of success on this argument on an appeal.
Additional Information about Personal Progress and Readiness for Employment
[19] The tenant is to be applauded for the efforts she has made to pursue her studies and health recovery. However, much of the information she provides arose after the Board’s order and could only be considered by the court if the tenant were successful in introducing it through a motion for fresh evidence. The Board was entitled to weigh the relevant circumstances at the time and grant the order terminating the tenancy. The additional information provided by the tenant, even if it were admitted on appeal, would not provide a basis for the court to find an error of law in the Board’s decision. . Ovwodorume v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario [COVID]
In Ovwodorume v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR, here against a dismissed "reconsideration decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario" in a claim which "alleged discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment because of disability":[7] Mr. Ovwodorume submits the Tribunal misapplied the law by ignoring that he was terminated for the perceived disability of having COVID-19. We disagree. It was reasonable for the Tribunal to conclude Mr. Ovwodorume’s termination was based on the contravention of workplace policies and procedures rather than a perceived disability. The Tribunal relied on the portion of the termination letter stating Mr. Ovwodorume was being terminated “for serious violations of Vita’s policies and procedures.” The letter stated it was a violation of policy and procedure for Mr. Ovwodorume not to inform his wife that he was removed from his shift because he was in contact with staff who had tested positive for COVID-19. It stated this resulted in his wife continuing to work and that he had thereby put Vita members and staff at a severe potential health risk. In the circumstances of this evidence, it was reasonable to conclude the termination was not due to a perceived disability.
|
