|
Social Housing (3). Lindsay v. Ecuhome Corporation
In Lindsay v. Ecuhome Corporation (Div Court, 2024) the Ontario Divisional Court considered the law relating to a CJA s.21(5) Divisional Court panel set aside motion.
Here the court sets out it's RGI subsidy determination jurisdiction:[22] The more fundamental problem with Mr. Lindsay’s position is that even if he were granted an extension of time to review Justice Matheson’s decision and even if the panel set aside Justice Matheson’s order and even if he were permitted to files his judicial review application from the 2022 decisions of the Board, this Court would not be able to correct the RGI calculations. That is because, as Mr. Lindsay has been repeatedly told, the Landlord and Tenant Board does not have jurisdiction to consider issues related to the calculation of RGI subsidies. RGI calculations are governed by the Housing Services Act, and the Residential Tenancies Act expressly prohibits the Board from making determinations or reviewing decisions about eligibility for an RGI subsidy or the amount of a subsidy. This Court can only consider the validity of the Board’s decision on an application for judicial review. This Court cannot review or correct the RGI calculations that were done by another statutory decision maker. . Ramlal Hemchand v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation
In Ramlal Hemchand v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered a large rent arrears order from the LTB for a social housing unit. At a prior JR the tenant-appellant unsuccessfully argued against that local RGI decision, illustrating the expected procedural route where a social housing tenant challenges an RGI termination [as per RTA s.203]:[5] In the tenant’s notice of appeal, he alleged that he had wrongly lost his rent-geared-to-income (“RGI”) assistance, resulting in a large rent increase and the rental arrears. Before moving forward with his appeal, he was permitted to await a decision in a related application for judicial review that was before this Court. He had sought judicial review of a decision of the City of Toronto Review Board regarding his eligibility to receive RGI assistance.
[6] The tenant’s judicial review application regarding RGI was dismissed.[1] . Tice v. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
In Tice v. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court illustrates the social housing limitations on accomodation, both human rights and otherwise - here to the point of dispelling the legal duty to accomodate entirely - no doubt due the scarcity of such units:[1] The Applicant is a resident of the Peggy and Andrew Brewin Housing Co-Operative, where she has lived since 2007. She is a person with a disability (including claustrophobia) requiring her to live in an apartment with a balcony. In 2012, the Applicant was informed that she was ineligible for a housing subsidy because she was over-housed in her current two-bedroom apartment. She then requested a transfer to a one-bedroom unit.
[2] In 2015, the Applicant was offered a one-bedroom unit that had a balcony, but she rejected it as it was modified for people with physical disabilities and she did not feel it met her needs.
[3] The Applicant and the Co-op exchanged numerous communications about the availability and acceptability of units in the Co-op and the Applicant’s position on the Co-op’s waitlist, which was managed and prioritized in accordance with City of Toronto guidelines. Over the next few years, three one-bedroom units with balconies were offered to other individuals on the priority list.
....
[7] Following a hearing and a review of the amended application submitted on February 25, 2022, on July 25, 2022 the Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that the application had no reasonable prospect of success: Tice v. Peggy and Andrew Brewin Housing Co-operative and Rose Schwartz, 2022 HRTO 927. In the decision, Adjudicator Mason wrote at para. 18:Based on the submissions from the applicant, she did not point to any evidence in her possession or available to her that could show she was discriminated against based on her disability. The applicant submitted that she required a one-bedroom apartment so as to qualify for subsidies. I understand this was a pressing need for the applicant, but this is not covered under the Code. The Tribunal does not address issues of general unfairness. ....
[15] The HRTO applied the correct legal test to the evidence and submissions before it, and concluded the application had no reasonable prospect of success as her complaint did not raise violations of the Human Rights Code but arose from concerns around fairness in the allocation of subsidized housing and how it is prioritized. While the Applicant maintained before us that housing was a human rights issue, the HRTO reasonably found that a denial of housing does not become a “human rights issue” unless that denial is based on a Code-related ground. In this case the Code-related ground was the Applicant’s claustrophobia, which required that she be housed in a unit with a balcony. At all times the Applicant has been housed in a unit with a balcony and the uncontradicted evidence before the HRTO was that the Co-op offered the Applicant a one-bedroom unit with a balcony, which she refused. It is not for this court to re-weigh the evidence and substitute its own decision in such circumstances.
|
