Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., landlord found to have violated rights of tenant with a disability

A landlord in Sault Ste. Marie discriminated against a man who is deaf and has limited sight, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ruled. (File)

A landlord in Sault Ste. Marie discriminated against a man who is deaf and has limited sight, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ruled.

The actions were so severe, the victim fled to a shelter just two weeks after renting the room. He later moved to London, Ont. The tribunal awarded him a total of $8,336 as compensation for losses of property and dignity.

The landlord made derogatory comments, kept demanding new fees, refused to move his vehicle so the man could move in and refused to text the man to communicate with him, insisting on speaking to him when he couldn't hear, the tribunal found.

After the victim fled the rented room after just two weeks, the landlord peed on the man's mattress, damaged his adult tricycle and stole $230 in meat the victim had left in the freezer, according to the decision.

The victim has Usher Syndrome, a genetic condition that affects hearing and vision. He has no hearing and limited sight, communicating through text messages, sign language or the Canada Video Relay Service (CVRS).

The man rented the room in June 2021 from the landlord, who was aware of his condition. But problems began immediately.

"The day he moved in, the applicant asked the respondent to move his vehicle out of the driveway so the applicant could safely move his effects into the household," the decision said.

"The respondent refused. The applicant was forced to use a less direct path that included stairs and a light post. Because of his limited sight, he walked into the light post several times."

A few days after he moved in, the landlord had him sign a lease agreement that said he would pay $1,400 for first and last month's rent, which the victim signed, the decision said.

Changing his lease 

"The next day, the (landlord) wrote a new lease agreement, which provided that the applicant owed $1,500 for first and last months’ rent, and $800 on the first day of each intervening month," the tribunal said.

Then a few days later, the landlord insisted the man had to pay him a $100 storage fee on top of his rent. If he didn't agree, the landlord said he had to move out.

"That day, the applicant managed to secure his bedroom door from the inside," the tribunal said.

"The respondent kicked the door down. The applicant was on his phone, communicating with an interpreter via CVRS. The respondent grabbed the applicant’s arm, took the applicant’s phone, yelled at the CVRS interpreter and threw the phone. After the respondent left the room, the applicant called police. They escorted him to a shelter."

He left behind all his belongings, including his adult tricycle – his only means of getting around – and the frozen meat.

"When he returned, he found the respondent had removed his belongings and his frozen meat, urinated on his mattress and damaged his tricycle," the tribunal said.

Frozen meat missing

"The applicant provided photo evidence of the meat: in the first picture, taken prior to his departure from the respondent’s home, a substantial quantity of meat is visible in an open freezer; in the second picture, taken upon his return, the meat is gone. He also provided photo evidence of his tricycle: in the first picture, the tricycle appears in working order; in the second, it is bent and has a discarded mattress and box spring on top of it."

The victim stayed at the shelter for a month. The landlord came to the shelter three times and was forced to leave by shelter staff, according to the decision.

The victim moved to London in July and filed the human rights complaint.

Despite repeated attempts, the landlord failed to respond to any of the allegations and didn't appear before the tribunal to defend himself.

He was sent letters informing him that if he didn't respond, it would have the same effect as admitting to all the allegations.

Compelling case

In its decision, the tribunal said even if the landlord had responded, the victim made a compelling case.

"I found the applicant to be credible and his evidence to be reliable," the decision said.

"His account was straightforward and coherent. He provided documentation consistent with his allegations about the respondent’s conduct, including copies of the respondent’s handwritten notes. He also provided photographs consistent with his allegations of damage and theft. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of his claims, nor the authenticity of his supporting evidence."

While accepting most of the claims for losses, the tribunal reduced the award from $3,136 to $2,836, declining to award moving costs to London.

However, it accepted a claim of $5,500 for "injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect."

"The respondent’s discriminatory conduct had a baleful effect on the applicant," the decision said.

"His life was upended. On top of the challenge of living with his disability, he found himself unhoused, alone and deprived of his belongings because of the respondent’s actions."

Read the full decision here.