Landlord used derogatory terms, taunting language and promised to make life difficult
A Calgary landlord has been ordered to pay $13,000 in damages after an Alberta Human Rights Commission tribunal ruled that she had discriminated against her gay tenant because of his sexual orientation.
“Specifically . . . the respondent used a derogatory term directed at the complainant, threatened that his life would not be easy in the building, used taunting language and tones and tampered with his mailbox lock” tribunal member Erika Ringseis wrote in a decision released in late July.
After living peacefully in the building for three years, Adam Ceresne alleged that landlord Margaret Crosby discriminated against him.
Ceresne had written on his tenant application before moving into the unit in 2017 that he worked at a well-known gay bar in Calgary. Crosby acknowledged that she surmised he was gay based on his place of employment, though there was no discussion about his sexuality at the time.
However, Ceresne’s sexual orientation did not become an issue until disagreements beginning 2020, after his mother moved into the one-bedroom unit while waiting to move into her Toronto condo, due to delayed construction because of the pandemic.
The harassment began after Ceresne’s mother allegedly criticized the condition of the apartment building. She also mentioned to Crosby in casual conversation that her son was gay.
Crosby said the tenant agreement was for one person, but Ceresne had asked her verbally if his mother could share the unit until she could move into her own place. Crosby agreed, and the complainant’s mother moved into the apartment in May 2020.
However, on July 12, 2020, the respondent sent a formal notice asking Ceresne’s mother to leave the unit by July 26. This was when a series of negative interactions started between Ceresne and Crosby, leading to the human rights complaint.
Upon receiving the notice for the mother to leave, Ceresne texted Crosby, apologizing for any miscommunication. Crosby replied that the mother had been “very critical of the apartment and issues of cleanliness and functionality of the building.”
Following the apology, Crosby rescinded the demand for Ceresne’s mother to leave immediately. The mother stayed until September 2020.
Ceresne testified that the relationship with Crosby had been quite cordial and respectful until after his mother had come to live with him.
Ringseis wrote: “At first, there were no issues, and then the respondent’s behaviour changed. The complainant said he was confused about the change of demeanour of the respondent until his mother later informed him that she had inadvertently informed the respondent about the complainant’s sexual orientation.”
Starting with the incident in July 2020, Ceresne alleged Crosby treated him poorly and in a discriminatory manner, with the landlord “calling him a derogatory term, tampering with his mailbox, locking him outside in the frigid weather and refusing to accept his rent.”
On May 1, 2021, Ceresne gave notice and moved out of the apartment a month later.
As evidence of the discrimination, Ceresne provided a video clip where Crosby was seen aggressively shaking her phone in the complainant’s personal space, “mimicking recording him, talking about him going to Mom and Dad for support and calling him a ‘little gay prick’ who spends time gossiping about others in the building.
In analyzing whether negative comments rise to a level of harassment that adversely affects a person in their tenancy that would be considered discrimination, Ringseis wrote that “context is critical.”
She noted that in this case, Crosby “is the landlord, holding a position of power over the complainant, who is a member of a group that has historically been discriminated against.” She also wrote that “the comment was made aggressively," and no apology was offered when the complainant was a tenant.
“In fact, no apology was offered until a reluctant apology [was given] during the human rights tribunal hearing.”
Crosby did not deny the negative interaction on the video but said she was upset. “The respondent suggested that she was scared by [Ceresne] following her and videotaping and felt unsafe in the apartment,” Ringseis wrote.
“She testified that she moved out of the office at the apartment building and hired one of the other tenants as a new building manager . . . to assist her because she no longer felt safe and comfortable coming to the building regularly.
However, Ringseis concluded that she did not find it likely that the respondent was scared or no longer felt safe coming to the building. “She certainly was angered by the respondent and did not appear to appreciate being videotaped, but she did not ask him to stop recording. Nor did she attempt to walk away as she claimed.”
Ringseis added: “She followed the complainant and spoke to him in a taunting, jeering tone even though she was clearly being recorded. The respondent threatened the complainant that it would not be easy for him to live in the building, which seemed to imply that she intended to make life difficult for the complainant.”
Based on case law, Ceresne suggested that a “reasonable award” would be between $7,000 and $13,000. Crosby argued that this would be an “astronomical” amount, considering the few derogatory words she used against Ceresne. If anything, the appropriate remedy would be an order of a written apology, Crosby said.
Ringseis did not accept this argument. “This calculation of damage per word spoken would ignore the entire context of the threats, the taunting behaviour and comments made by the respondent on the video and the damage to the mailbox lock.”
She added that monetary compensation was appropriate in the context of Ceresne’s complaint. “We cannot condone negative comments, slurs or threats made against people who identify as gay, and compensation is due to the complainant.”
In addition to general damages, Ceresne had asked for $4,000 in special damages because of a reduction in income during the relevant period. “The complainant provided evidence to demonstrate that his income declined starting in October [2020] . . . until he moved out of the building,” Ringseis wrote.
“The complainant testified that it was difficult to focus on his work when he felt so uncomfortable in his home and that dealing with matters and court proceedings affected his ability to earn the income he had earned in months prior.” Because of the pandemic, Ceresne could not work at the bar and had been working out of his home on social media projects.
However, Ringseis ruled that the connection between discriminatory action and income loss is remote. “There were a number of negative interactions occurring between the complainant and the respondent, some of which were found to be in violation of the Act, but others which were found not to have a connection to a protected grounds.”
She also wrote, “There are a number of factors that could have affected the complainant’s income during the relevant time, and the complainant has not met the burden of proof to show that the discrimination by the respondent was to blame for his entire reduction in income.”
