Tribunal rules that lack of washroom access for Sudbury’s homeless isn’t a human rights case

Holland Marshall’s application to force Sudbury to provide 24/7 downtown washrooms for homeless individuals was dismissed by Ontario’s Human Rights Tribunal.

A man who said the fact homeless people in Sudbury didn’t have round-the-clock access to washrooms was a human rights violation has lost his appeal to a provincial tribunal.

The tribunal said it didn’t have jurisdiction to hear the case because being homeless isn’t, in itself, a violation of human rights under the Human Rights Code in Ontario.

Holland Marshall launched a case with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario on behalf of 21 people, “each of whom is a person without housing residing in the Sudbury area,” the tribunal said in its decision, dated June 27.

“Several of the applicants also suffer (from) mental or physical disabilities. The alleged basis of discrimination is the failure of the respondent to offer toilet and hand washing facilities that are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

Missing key elements

In a ruling April 4, the tribunal told Marshall that his case was missing key elements to qualify as a human rights complaint.

“A review of the application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent,” the tribunal said.

“The tribunal does not have jurisdiction over general allegations of unfairness …”

Marshall amended his application April 17, but the tribunal said it still lacked key elements.

“The tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to enforcement of the Code,” the decision said.

“The Code only prohibits actions that discriminate against people based on their enumerated ground(s) in a protected social area.”

While Marshall argued the discrimination was based on disability, the tribunal said, “it is clear from the submissions that the applicant’s focus is on the applicant’s status of homelessness.”

“This is acknowledged in their submissions wherein they state ‘this application is not asking to address general allegations of unfairness, it is addressing … the respondent’s different treatment of the city’s population that has housing and the claimants who do not.’”

While there may be a connection between someone having a disability and homelessness, the tribunal said they can’t be substituted for each other.

And “in this case, not all of the 21 purported applicants have an identified disability.”

Previous rulings have determined that homelessness is not a ground for a complaint to the tribunal under the Code.

“Given the above, no Code-based ground is engaged by the application, and the tribunal is without jurisdiction to hear this matter,” the decision said.

“The application is dismissed …”

Read the full decision here.

With files from CTVNorthernOntario.ca journalist Alana Everson