Part 54 published on 01/05/16
Board of co-operative corporation failed to take proper steps to deal with anonymous harassments of certain members
In this Co-operative Corporation, there was tension between a previous group of Board members and the new Board. This tension stemmed from a dispute about the alleged use of Co-op funds to renovate a particular Board member’s unit. Between April 28, 2012 and September 15, 2012 an anonymous and unidentified person wrote or posted eighteen upsetting and disparaging messages about certain members in the Co-op. Some of the targeted members were from the previous Board.
Some of the messages referred to specific individuals and their unit numbers. The content included terms related to disability, race, sex, gender identity, ancestry, age or receipt of public assistance. These are prohibited grounds of discrimination in relation to the occupancy of accommodation under Ontario’s Human Rights Code. The messages were posted around the Co-op, in the mail room, on specific members’ doors and written on the walls of the elevators.
The new Board had made some efforts to deal with the harassment. For instance, the Board sent notices to all members (instructing against vandalizing the property) and ultimately sent a further notice against the specific postings. The Board also relocated two security cameras and installed twenty-two fake cameras. In addition, the Board offered mediation to some of the members affected by the postings.
At the same time, the Board had asserted that there was only so much that could be done, because the culprits could not be identified.
The Human Rights Tribunal said that the Board’s efforts were not enough, and held that the Board was in violation of its obligations under the Human Rights Code to take reasonable steps in the face of such harassment.
The Tribunal noted that the Co-op had no harassment or discrimination policy, and also no training in relation to such matters. But, more importantly, the Tribunal said that the Board had failed to respond properly to the particular incidents of harassment. The Tribunal said:
In my view, the formal processes and policies that a housing provider may have in place are less important than what it actually does once it receives a complaint of harassment. Whether the respondent’s reaction to complaints of harassment was reasonable, depends, as noted, on the unique circumstances of each case. One of the unique and obvious characteristics of this case was that the harassment experienced by the applicants was egregious and persistent. In this context, the evidence does not support the respondent’s contention that it took the matter seriously or addressed it with a sense of urgency. In my view, the respondent’s most significant failure was the complete absence of communication with the applicants. In my view, when a respondent receives a human rights complaint it should acknowledge the complaint, assure the complainant(s) that the complaint is important, and that action will be taken to address it. In ongoing situations such as this one, a respondent should maintain contact with the complainant(s) and keep them apprised of the actions the respondent intends to take.… In cases of surreptitious harassment, such as this one, it may not be possible to catch the culprit, but the victims must be assured of their right to live in an environment free from discrimination and harassment. The evidence was that the Co-op never contacted the applicants about the flyers.
The Tribunal ordered the Co-op to pay each complainant $3,000 (for a total of $30,000) to compensate for the failure of the Board to adequately investigate and address the complaints. The Tribunal also ordered the Board to inform all members of the Co-op about the award and to post copies of the decision on the Co-op bulletin boards for a period of six months.
[Editorial Note: For these purposes, Co-ops and condominiums are very much analogous. In my view, there’s a real possibility that these same concepts apply to a condominium corporation.]