Salt’s landlord was fined after a disabled person complained about human rights violations

A Sault Ste. Marie’s landlord is facing a hefty fine after the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) ruled in favor of a disabled man who claimed discrimination, stolen meat and a soiled mattress.

The applicant said that the respondent, who was his landlord, knew that he was deaf, partially blind and required some accommodation for his disability-related needs when he moved into his house in 2021. The tenant moved out after only two weeks due to the owner’s behavior. a landlord who Judge Will McNair said took advantage of a vulnerable person.

In his decision, McNair stated that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of his disability and violated his right to equal treatment in the employment of housing.

The landlord did not respond to the allegations made through the HRTO and did not participate in the proceedings.

Under the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, he was deemed to have agreed to all the allegations in the application and waived his right to participate in the hearing.

Because of his disability, the applicant communicates using American Sign Language, text messages, or a service called the Canada Video Relay Service, which is accessed through his phone. He claims the landlord refused to accept communication with him via text message.

“Instead, he addressed the applicant. The applicant could not understand and therefore could not respond,” McNair said in his ruling.

On move-in day, the landlord temporarily refused to move his truck to allow the applicant to move his belongings more easily.

“Applicant was forced to use a less direct route that included stairs and a light pole,” the charges state. “Because of his limited vision, he walked into the lantern several times.”

McNair said that although the respondent knew that he needed an obstacle-free path due to the applicant’s limited vision, he refused to accommodate that need by moving his truck when asked.

Later, a friend who was helping the applicant move told him that the landlord had referred to his disability in derogatory terms.

The applicant claims that he was not given a key to his own room as other tenants were allowed, and when he was able to lock the door, the landlord allegedly kicked it in and assaulted him.

It is also alleged that the defendant changed the terms of the lease after it was signed, in particular, the amount changed from $1,400 for the first and last to $1,500. Respondent also provided petitioner with a handwritten note a few days later demanding $100 in storage fees, which had not been previously agreed upon.

This note was submitted as evidence to the affidavit and it stated in full: “YOU MUST GIVE ME $100.00. FOR STORAGE IF YOU DON’T MAKE A DECISION BY SAT (JUNE 26) 2021. TOLD ME WELFARE YES OR NO $100.00 EXTRA TODAY.’

The applicant said that the respondent’s demand for additional money was an attempt to take advantage of him as a person with a disability. He moved to a shelter for a month, and when he returned, his mattress had been peed on and his belongings taken, including hundreds of dollars worth of frozen meat, totaling $3,100 in damages.

Shortly thereafter, the applicant moved to southern Ontario “to escape the situation and find better support services” for his needs, the decision said.

McNair ordered the respondent to pay a total of $8,336.63 in compensation to the applicant for financial and human rights damages.

“By refusing to move his truck when requested, and by refusing to communicate via text message, the respondent disrespected, marginalized and isolated the applicant, even though providing such accommodations would not have caused him any hardship,” McNair said in his ruling.

“The respondent tried to take advantage of the applicant’s vulnerability and isolation in order to extract more money from him. Eventually, the defendant became violent.

“This behavior put the applicant in a precarious position where he had to choose between enduring escalating human rights violations or losing his belongings and housing. He chose the latter.”