Damage to Dignity

Noe v. Ranee Management, 2014 HRTO 1658 (CanLII)

[2] The Tribunal held a hearing in this matter on February 21, 2014. In Decision 2014 HRTO 746, dated May 23, 2014, I found that the applicant has a disability that causes her to be sensitive to chemicals. I further found that she asked the respondent to accommodate her regarding its use of chemicals (paints, solvents, cleaners, etc.) in the apartment building in which she lived at 195 Barrington Avenue in Toronto. The respondent declined to accommodate the applicant, which I found was a breach of her right to be free from discrimination in the occupancy of accommodation under section 2(1) of the Code.

13

of

18

Noe v. Ranee Management, 2014 HRTO 1658 (CanLII) Document History (1) Cited documents (4) Cited by (1) CanLII Connects (0)

PDF

Date: 2014-11-14 File number: 2012-13270-I Citation: Noe v. Ranee Management, 2014 HRTO 1658 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/gfb4f>, retrieved on 2020-10-17 HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

______________________________________________________________________

B E T W E E N:

Simona Noe

Applicant

-and-

Ranee Management

Respondent

______________________________________________________________________

DECISION ON REMEDY

______________________________________________________________________

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: November 14, 2014

File Number: 2012-13270-I

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1658

Indexed as: Noe v. Ranee Management

______________________________________________________________________

APPEARANCES

)

Simona Noe, Applicant

) )

No one appearing

)

)

Ranee Management, Respondent

) )

David Strashin, Counsel

)

[1] This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to occupancy of accommodation because of disability.

[2] The Tribunal held a hearing in this matter on February 21, 2014. In Decision 2014 HRTO 746, dated May 23, 2014, I found that the applicant has a disability that causes her to be sensitive to chemicals. I further found that she asked the respondent to accommodate her regarding its use of chemicals (paints, solvents, cleaners, etc.) in the apartment building in which she lived at 195 Barrington Avenue in Toronto. The respondent declined to accommodate the applicant, which I found was a breach of her right to be free from discrimination in the occupancy of accommodation under section 2(1) of the Code.

[3] The parties did not address the issue of remedy during the hearing on February 21, 2014 and the Tribunal scheduled a hearing on September 29, 2014, commencing at 9:30 a.m., to address the issue of the appropriate remedy for the breach of the applicant’s Code rights. The applicant did not attend at 9:30 a.m. and in accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 10:00 a.m. for the applicant to arrive. When the applicant did not arrive the hearing proceeded.

[4] Counsel for the respondent pointed to a letter the applicant filed with the Tribunal on August 27, 2014. The letter is addressed to this writer and states as follows:

I strongly disagree with your decision on May 23, 2014 and I am filing for an appeal to this matter. (Bold in the original)

Counsel submitted that the applicant’s letter may explain her absence. Counsel submitted that the applicant has taken no action to set aside the Decision.

[5] The respondent submitted that the applicant no longer lives at 195 Barrington Avenue, as noted in Decision 2014 HRTO 746. The respondent submitted that an award of damages was appropriate, but in view of the applicant’s failure to attend the hearing and the lack of further material going to the issue of remedy any such award should be modest. The respondent submitted that an award of damages between $1,500 and $2,500 would be appropriate. I noted that in the Application the applicant had also requested that the Tribunal require the respondent’s personnel take human rights training. Counsel for the respondent stated that the respondent would not be adverse to an order requiring its personnel to take the online HR 101 training provided by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

[6] The Tribunal’s remedial authority is set out in section 45.2 of the Code as follows:

45.2 (1) On an Application under section 34, the Tribunal may make one or more of the following orders if the Tribunal determines that a party to the Application has infringed a right under Part I of another party to the Application:

1. An order directing the party who infringed the right to pay monetary compensation to the party whose right was infringed for loss arising out of the infringement, including compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

2. An order directing the party who infringed the right to make restitution to the party whose right was infringed, other than through monetary compensation, for loss arising out of the infringement, including restitution for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

3. An order directing any party to the Application to do anything that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the party ought to do to promote compliance with this Act.

[7] An award of compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect recognizes the inherent value of the right to be free from discrimination and the experience of victimization. In ADGA Group Consultants Inc. v. Lane, 2008 CanLII 39605 (ON SCDC), 91 OR (3d) 649, (ON S.C.D.C.), the Divisional Court confirmed that the factors to be considered in setting the amount of damages include: humiliation, hurt feelings, the loss of self-respect, dignity and confidence by the applicant, the experience of victimization, the vulnerability of the applicant, and the seriousness of the offensive treatment. When determining the appropriate award of compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect the Tribunal considers objective seriousness of the conduct and the effect on the particular applicant who experienced discrimination.

[8] In my view, the breach of the applicant’s rights was fairly serious. The applicant requested accommodation of her disability in order to avoid the symptoms caused by exposure to commonly used chemicals. It is clearly important to be able to live without discomfort in one’s home. The respondent ignored the applicant’s requests in breach of its obligations under the Code, which is also objectively serious in my opinion because it demonstrates a disregard for the applicant’s human rights. At the hearing on February 21, 2014, the applicant testified that she experienced cramps, palpitations, problems with her nose and eyes and that she found it difficult to go into areas where she encountered chemical fumes. The applicant did not participate in the hearing on remedy and, as a result, there is no other evidence regarding the effect the breach of the applicant’s rights had on her.

[9] The applicant requested $10,000 for compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. The applicant did not participate in the remedy hearing and, as a result, the evidence before me regarding the subjective effect the respondent’s conduct had on the applicant is limited. Accordingly, I am not prepared to make the award requested by the applicant. Based on the objective seriousness of the respondent’s conduct in refusing the applicant’s request for accommodation, I find that an award of $5,000 for compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect is appropriate. I also find it appropriate to order that all of the respondent’s managerial employees take the eLearning module “Human Rights 101” that is found on the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s website at www.ohrc.on.ca and confirm completion of same in writing to the applicant within 90 days of the date of this decision.

ORDER

[10] The Tribunal orders as follows:

a. Within 30 days of the date of this Decision on Remedy, the respondent shall pay to the applicant $5,000.00 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect;