On August 8, 2017, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”) denied a request for reconsideration of its previous decision in Madkour v Alabi. In the previous decision (the “Original Hearing”), the HRTO considered a claim brought by residential tenants Madkour and Ismail (the “Tenants”) against their landlord, Alabi (the “Landlord”) for discrimination on the grounds of their creed. Subsection 2(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”) provides that every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to accommodation (i.e. housing) free from discrimination, including discrimination based on creed. Subsection 2(2) provides that every person who occupies accommodation has a right to freedom from harassment by the landlord, including harassment based on their creed.
In the Original Hearing, the Tenants, who identify as Arab Muslims, had commenced an application against the Landlord, claiming that he had failed to accommodate their religious practices when showing their apartment to prospective tenants and that he harassed them and created a poisoned housing environment. The HRTO ultimately found that the Landlord had discriminated against the Tenants by (1) refusing to provide notice other than the 24 hours’ notice required by the Residential Tenancies Act, which violated their reasonable requirement for additional notice due to Muslim practices relating to prayer and modest attire for women; and (2) refusing to remove his shoes when entering the apartment, and in particular their prayer space. It further found that the Landlord’s actions amounted to harassment under the Code through a combination of a vexatious comment, making loud pounding noises outside the Tenants’ door after the comment, and his refusal to remove his shoes when entering the prayer space. The Landlord was ultimately ordered to pay the Tenants $6,000 each for the violations.
In the present case, the Landlord sought reconsideration, alleging new evidence, conflict with tribunal practice, and an error in admitting a post from the Landlord’s Facebook page into evidence without justifying its relevance. The HRTO rejected all of the Landlord’s allegations. Of particular interest is that it affirmed that the Facebook post, which contained a “joke” about a devout Arab Muslim, was relevant to discerning the respondent’s views on religiously-based accommodation requests by Muslims.
This decision serves as a reminder for charities and not-for profits that provide housing of the importance of adhering not only provincial tenancy laws but also to applicable human rights codes. Moreover, charities and not-for-profits which use social media should be mindful that social media posts can be admitted as evidence in a court of law and can be, as was the case in Madkour v Alabi, indicative of discrimination or harassment.