BOARD OF INQUIRY (Human Rights Code) IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended; AND IN THE MATTER OF the complaints by Harcourt Sinclair dated April 11, 1997 and Jennifer Newby dated August 6, 1997 alleging discrimination in accommodation because of race, colour, and age. BETWEEN: Ontario Human Rights Commission -and- Harcourt Sinclair and Jennifer Newby Complainants -and- Morris A. Hunter Investments Ltd. and Larry McGrath Respondents DECISION Adjudicator: Mary Anne McKellar Date: November 5, 2001 Board File No. BI-0207/208-99 : Decision No.: 01-024 BoardofInquiry(HumanRightsCode) 505 UniversityAvenue 2ndFloor,Toronto,ON M5G2P3 Phone(416)314-0004 Tollfree 1-800-668-3946 Fax:(416)314-8743 TTY:(416) 314-2379 TTYTollfree: 1-800^24-1168 APPEARANCES Ontario Human Rights Commission William Holder, Counsel Harcourt Sinclair, Jennifer Newby, Bruce Porter Complainants Leilani Farha, Counsel Morris A. Hunter Investments Ltd., Morris A. Hunter Corporate Respondent Larry McGrath, Larry McGrath Personal Respondent INTRODUCTION In complaints dated March 11 and August 6, 1997, respectively, the Complainants, Harcourt Sinclair and Jennifer Newby allege that the Corporate Respondents, Bexon Investments Ltd. ("Bexon"), and Morris A. Hunter Investments, and the Personal Respondent Larry McGrath discriminated against them in the provision of accommodation contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended ("the Code"), by rejecting their application for tenancy when they failed to meet a specified rent/income ratio and job tenure criterion. Specifically, the Complaints allege that rent/income ratios have an adverse impact on young prospective tenants and prospective tenants who are persons ofcolour because their incomes are significantly lower than those ofolder adults and those who are not persons ofcolour. In accordance with the Board's usual practice, the hearing into the Complaints commenced by conference call. McGrath took that call on behalfofall Respondents. At various times subsequently McGrath advised the Board in writing that the Respondents would not be participating in the hearing of this matter, and no Response to the Commission's Statement of Facts and Issues was filed. Consequently, the Board was somewhat surprised to find not only McGrath but Morris Hunter in attendance on the first day of hearing, and to find that the Commission and Complainants had settled the Complaints as against Bexon. Upon receipt of a completed Form 3 (Confirmation of Full Settlement) executed by the Complainants, the Commission, and counsel for Bexon, the Board issued an order disposing of the Complaints against Bexon "in accordance with the terms ofthe [settlement] agreement dated 19 May 2000". At the outset ofthe hearing, the Commissionbrought a motion to amend the Complaint to reflect the correct name ofone ofthe respondents. This motion was opposed by Morris Hunter. After hearing the submissions ofthe parties, the Board issued the following oral ruling: The Board orders the Complaint amended to reflect that the correct name ofthe corporate respondent identified as Morris A. Hunter Investments is in fact Morris A. Hunter Investments Ltd. The misdescription has not operated to prejudice the corporate respondent, as its principal shareholder, Morris A. Hunter, has been present throughout these proceedings. Mr. Hunter, on behalf of the corporate respondent may renew his submission that the case should be dismissed as against the corporate respondent at the end ofthe hearing. McGrath and Hunter attended during the testimony of the Complainants and cross- examined them. They then absented themselves from the hearing on the days that the Commission and the Complainants proffered the evidence of their experts, but attended once again following the conclusion ofthat testimony to lead their own evidence. They also attended and participated in the hearing during final argument. Once the Complainants had finished testifying, they also absented themselves from the hearing. They continued, however, to be represented by the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation throughout the proceeding. BACKGROUND This recitation of certain background facts is based on the testimony of the Complainants and McGrath. These witnesses, and particularly McGrath, testified at much greater length and in much greater detail about these events than the following synopsis reflects. The Board is aware that there was a significant dispute between the parties respecting the sufficiency of the Complainants' tenancy application and the reasons they failed to obtain an apartment at 1920 Weston Road. On the view the Board takes ofthis case, however, this dispute does not need to be resolved. The Complainants are both black. In March 1997, the Complainants had been dating one another for some time and decided to look for an apartment to share. At the time, Harcourt Sinclair was 27 years old and Jennifer Newby was 23 years old. Both were attending school and working on a part-time basis for United Parcel Service. They learned that there was a vacant one-bedroom apartment available in a large apartment building located at 1920 Weston Road. The rent was $630 per month. On or about March 4, 1997, McGrath, the Property Manager of the building, showed them the apartment. The Complainants liked the apartment and McGrath provided them with a rental application form. It was accompanied by a covering letter, indicating that certain supporting 2 documents must be submitted along with a completed application. These documents included the following: Letter from employer confirming employment or confirmation ofpension or other annual income. Letter of employment should show length of full time employment and annual earnings. Applicants should consider that their employment income be approximately three times the rental payment and have a solid work history. The Complainants returned the application to McGrath a few days later. He requested further supporting documentation. After responding to this request, the Complainants were advised by McGrath that the apartment in question had already been rented. They also failed to obtain a second one-bedroom apartment that subsequently became available at 1920 Weston Road. The Complainants managed to rent a comparable apartment from a different landlord at a rent of$650 per month commencing April 1, 1997. They continued to occupy this apartment at the time of the hearing and testified that they had never had any trouble meeting the rental payments. The Complainants allege that their applications for tenancy were rejected because they failed to satisfy a rent/income ratio of33% and had not been employed on a continuous full-time basis for at least three years. While not denying that rent/income ratios are used in assessing applications for tenancy at 1920 Weston Road, the Respondents maintained at the hearing that the Complainants' failure to complete the application form properly and to provide all necessary information, along with their employer's refusal to confirm the permanency oftheir employment led to the rejection of their application. The Board notes, however, that the response to the Complaints prepared by McGrath and filed with the Commission in June 1997 indicated that: Ms. Newby & Mr. Sinclair were made aware that they required a qualifying income of$24,000.00 and they had to have a satisfactory work history. We have a valuable asset which we must protect and we follow that [sic] same guidelines a bank or mortgage company would use for a mortgage. I appreciate that the applicant liked the apartment as it had just been redecorated but, in our evaluation they were not qualified for that amount of rent. The fact that their employer would not assure us that their part time employment was not of a s permanent nature but subject to the companies [sic] level of business was an added concern. In addition to the testimony ofthe Complainants and McGrath, the Board heard opinion evidence from a number of expert witnesses. This evidence was adduced by the Commission and Complainants in support oftheir position that the use ofrent/income ratios have an adverse impact upon young persons and persons of colour and cannot be justified as a reasonable business practice. The Respondents did not cross-examine the expert witnesses called by the Complainants and the Commission nor did they lead any expert evidence of their own with respect to the adverse impact of rent/income ratios on protected groups or the business justification of such rental practices. THE PARTIES The Complaints were set out on the Commission's standard form, which includes a box for identifying respondents. The following text appeared in this box: "Larry McGrath (Property Manager), Bexon Investments Ltd., Morris A. Hunter Investments (landlords), c/o Westlaw Developments, 1920 Weston Road". Thus the Complaints appeared to identify three Respondents, McGrath, Hunter and Bexon, and to provide a mailing address, "c/o Westlaw Developments, 1920 Weston Road" for all ofthem. When the Commission referred the Complaints to the Board, its covering letter listed the above parties as respondents, and it also listed "Westlaw Developments" ("Westlaw") as a respondent. In all of its correspondence to the parties, the Board perpetuated this error and continued to identify Westlaw as a respondent. In his written communications with the Board, McGrath wrote on stationery headed Westlaw Developments. It is unfortunate that none ofthat correspondence included a Response to the Commission's Statement ofFacts and Issues, as that might have clarified the relationship between Westlaw and the Respondents, and Westlaw' status in these proceedings. 4 Only at the first day ofhearing did the following become clear: • McGrath was representing himself; • Morris Hunter was representing Hunter; • The Complaints against Bexon had settled; • McGrath and Hunter did not intend to cross-examine or otherwise challenge the experts that the Commission and Complainants proposed to call. Only after the Complainants' testimony had been concluded and McGrath and Hunter had absented themselves from the hearing, did the following particulars of the relationship between Westlaw and the named respondents become clear, and then only in response to questions from the Board; • Westlaw is apartnership; • Bexon and Hunter are the partners in Westlaw; • A Registered Partnership name search ordered by the Commission failed to come up with any information forWestlaw; • Westlaw owns the building at 1920 Weston Road; and • Westlaw is not arespondent. Further clarification on these matters were provided by McGrath and Hunter when they again attended the hearing, resulting in their entering into an agreed statement of facts with the Commission and the Complainants. It reads as follows: 1. 'Westlaw Developments' is the employer ofLarry McGrath. 2. 'Westlaw Developments' is an entity through which Bexon Investments Limited and Morris A. Hunter Investments Limited carry on business. From the uncontradicted evidence ofMcGrath the Board concludes that: • Westlaw employed McGrath; • The practice of using rent/income ratios in assessing applications for tenancy at 1920 Weston Road preceded McGrath's employment as Property Manager; • McGrath is Westlaw's only employee; • Westlaw's only business activity is the rental of the residential apartment units located at 1920 Weston Road; • Bexon and Hunter play no active role in the operation of Westlaw's business activity. Hunter maintained at the hearing that Westlaw was a properly registered partnership, but provided no documentary evidence to corroborate his statement, which was contradicted by the results ofthe Commission's search, as indicated above. • The Commission and the Complainants were aware throughout the hearing that Westlaw was not a respondent to the Complaints, and that this was a matter ofsome concern to the Board. They did not seek to add Westlaw as a respondent even after its relationship to McGrath and Bexon and Hunter was clarified, and even after the Board questioned the impact that Westlaw's omission could have on potential remedial orders. McGrath and Hunter had absented themselves from the hearing on the occasions when the Board posed the questions that led to the clarification of Westlaw's legal status and involvement in these matters. They apparently did not realize that Westlaw was not a party until the last day of the hearing, when the Commission was in the course of making its legal submissions. At that point, Hunter sought to amend the Complaints to add Westlaw as a respondent. This motion was opposed by the Commission and the Complainants, in part because they had already settled the Complaints as against Bexon. Hunter abandoned his motion when the Board ruled that it would be unfair to determine it in the absence ofnotice to Bexon, and that the hearing would be adjourned to allow for such notice to be given. THE CODE The pertinent provisions ofthe Code and regulations are the following: 6 s. 2(1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy ofaccommodation, without discrimination because ofrace, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, marital status, same-sex partnership status, family status, handicap or the receipt of public assistance. s. 9 No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. s.1 1(1) A right of a person under Part I is infringed where a requirement, qualification or factor exists that is not discrimination on a prohibited ground but that results in the exclusion, restriction or preference ofa group ofpersons who are identified by a prohibited ground ofdiscrimination and ofwhom the person is a member, except where, (a) the requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances; or (b) it is declared in this Act, other than in section 17, that to discriminate because of such ground is not an infringement of a right. (2) The Commission, the board of inquiry or a court shall not find that a requirement qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances unless it is satisfied that the needs ofthe group ofwhich the person is a member cannot be accommodated without undue hardship on the person responsible for accommodating those needs, considering the cost, outside sources of funding, if any, and health and safety requirements, ifany. (3) The Commission, the board of inquiry or a court shall consider any standards prescribed by the regulations for assessing what is undue hardship. S.21(3)The right under section 2 to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of residential accommodation without discrimination is not infringed if a landlord uses in the manner prescribed under this Act income information, credit checks, credit references, rental history, guarantees, or other similar business practices which are prescribed in the regulations under this Act in selecting prospective tenants. O.Reg.290/98 provides as follows: 1(1) A landlord may request credit references and rental history information, or either of them, from a prospective tenant and may request from a prospective tenant authorization to conduct credit checks on the prospective tenant. 7 (2) A landlord may consider credit references, rental history information and credit checks obtained pursuant to requests under subsection (1), alone or in any combination, in order to assess the prospective tenant and the landlord may select or refuse the prospective tenant accordingly. (3) A landlord mayrequest income information from a prospective tenant only ifthe landlord also requests information listed in subsection (1). (4) A landlord may consider income information about a prospective tenant in order to assess the prospective tenant and the landlord may select or refuse the prospective tenant accordingly only if the landlord considers the income information together with all the other information that was obtained by the landlord pursuant to requests under subsection (1). (5) If, after requesting the information listed in subsections (1) and (3), a landlord only obtains income information about a prospective tenant, the landlord may consider the income information alone in order to assess the prospective tenant and the landlord may select or refuse the prospective tenant accordingly. 2(1) A landlord may require a prospective tenant to obtain a guarantee for the rent. (2) A landlord may require a prospective tenant to pay a security deposit in accordance with sections 117 and 118 ofthe Tenant Protection Act, 1997. 3. In selecting a prospective tenant, a landlord of a rental unit described in paragraph 1, 2 or 3 of subsection 5(1) or subsection 6(1) of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 may request and use income information about a prospective tenant in order to determine a prospective tenant's eligibility for rent in an amount geared-to-income and, when requesting and using the income information for that purpose only, the landlord is not bound by subsections 1(3) and (4). 4. Nothing in this regulation authorizes a landlord to refuse accommodation to any person because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, handicap orthe receipt ofpublic assistance. 5. This Regulation comes into force on the day clause 48(a.l) of the Act comes into force. 8