A human rights complaint Sudbury resident Holland Marshall filed against the City to get 24/7 toilets downtown is now in the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s hands
The City of Greater Sudbury has filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings on July 30 asking that Holland Marshall’s human rights complaint be summarily dismissed.
Marshall filed his response, and now it’s up to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to decide whether the case will proceed.
“It’s obvious that they don’t want to compromise,” Marshall said, adding that as such, he will no longer agree to mediation. “They want it completely quashed.”
The city’s arguments are “outrageous,” he said.
North Bay has only a couple of port-a-potties available downtown. Callander has a state-of-the-art toilet planned to open next month.
“It’s exciting for us,” Mayor Robb Noon said, “it gives boaters a destination, and opens the doors to the downtown.”
See: Self-cleaning bathrooms coming to Callander waterfront this summer
Sudbury claims it accommodates the city’s homeless population to the point of “undue hardship,” which Marshall calls to question within a municipal operating budget of $782.8 million and big-ticket items which include a $200-million-plus arena.
“They claim they have no money in the budget,” he said. “It’s so bold to say something like that, it’s ridiculous.”
With the city’s downtown core housing a significant portion of the area’s homeless community, and the area lacking 24/7 washroom facilities, Marshall said his only goal is for the city to fill this service-level gap.
In addition to a new standalone toilet facility option, Marshall said the city might also consider opening up Tom Davies Square so people can access its ground-floor washrooms. There are options, he said, but the city doesn’t appear to be looking into it.
Indeed, since the downtown washroom issue was raised during a protest last year, there have not been any motions on the part of the city’s elected officials to create 24/7 barrier-free washroom facilities in Downtown Sudbury.
This, during a time in which city council unanimously backed a $350-million plan to bring a functional end to homelessness by 2030 — a proposed effort that leans heavily on receiving funding from senior levels of government, which city council has also agreed to advocate for.
In the city’s latest court filing, they note that Marshall is not homeless so may be ineligible to file a complaint due to his rights not being infringed, Marshall failed to secure proper consent from claimants and did not provide any evidence the city has discriminated against the homeless population “on any grounds protected under the Human Rights Code.”
Further, they wrote, “the Tribunal has explicitly clarified that homelessness is not a protected
ground under the Human Rights Code,” citing precedent.
“While the reasons or circumstances under which the individuals find themselves experiencing homelessness vary, the common element or underlying purpose of this complaint seeks to address a broader societal issue (or public interest advocacy piece) surrounding the lack of 24/7 access to public washrooms in the downtown area to those experiencing homelessness (regardless of the underlying reasons and/or personal circumstances),” according to the city’s response.
“When considering this matter as a whole, this is a homelessness issue and one which the Human Rights Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over.”
In his response, Marshall expresses his disagreement with the city’s push to strike his efforts, saying he has legal standing to act as an applicant, the city has discriminated against its homeless community, the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the application and there’s reasonable prospect for success.
“The Claimants have a right to the access to public washrooms on a year-round 24/7 basis because they do not have access to privately owned washrooms,” he said in his response.
“The lack of access to toilets, toilet paper, sinks, potable water, soap and hand towels for 12 to 14 hours a day, creates a risk to their personal health and also to the general public in downtown Sudbury.”
Although the city claims to be committed to tackling homelessness, Marshall countered that the number of homeless is on the rise and the city has bought a few “slum buildings” in recent months which had been providing housing, to be demolished to make way for the downtown arena project.
“Despite recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decisions, the Respondent is continuing to sweep small encampments without offering alternative housing,” he said. “These sweeps just push the homeless deeper in the woods or onto the streets.”
With this case now in the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s hands, the next update is slated to be their decision on whether the case will proceed through the courts.
To date, a city spokesperson told Sudbury.com the city has spent approximately $20,000 in costs related to Marshall’s human rights challenge.
Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.
