Elijah Elieff

LONDON (December 4, 1996) - In a fifteen-page judgement, justices Southey, Saunders, and Jenkins, of the Ontario Divisional Court, dismissed fourteen of the fifteen grounds under which the Ontario Human Rights Commission (HRC) appealed a 1994 Ontario Board of Inquiry ruling. (See Freedom Flyer, November 1996.) That ruling found that there was no evidence to support a racism complaint against London (former) landlord Elijah Elieff, although the Board levied a $2,500 fine against Elieff nevertheless.

The original $2,500 fine was awarded, not for any charges of racism, but for "damages" attributed to "reprisal", a contravention ground which was added near the end of the original proceedings and which was never argued or spoken to. Because the complainant accused Elieff of attempting to evict her for non-payment of rent during the course of the Board of Inquiry hearings, this was deemed "reprisal", even though the process of eviction was entirely legal and would have been appropriate under any other circumstances.

Although the HRC's appeal to have the fine for reprisal raised to $10,000 was dismissed, J. Southey, who authored the judgement, criticized the Board of Inquiry for referring to the original fine "as damages... ...the object of the Code is not to punish but to provide relief and promote understanding."

In a bizarre twist of logic, Southey supported the Commission on its eleventh point of appeal --- that the Board of Inquiry "erred in concluding that a racially poisoned environment did not exist."

Arguing that the media coverage "as reported by Mr. Van Moorsel in the London Free Press created a poisoned environment," Southey directed the Board of Inquiry to "vary its order by increasing the amount of the payment to be made by the respondents to the complainant from $2,500 to $6,000, with interest provisions in the order to apply to the increased amount."

Because of this "poisoned environment", Elieff would now be deemed guilty of "discrimination" against his Cambodian tenants, wrote Southey, "even though all other tenants who were not Cambodians were subject to the same deplorable conditions."

The Divisional Court's conclusion that Elieff specifically discriminated against 'Cambodians' presents another bizarre leap of discriminatory logic, given that this word was never attributed to Elieff in the original Free Press article acknowledged as the source of the "poisoned environment", and that the tenants in Elieff's buildings were a mix of various Asian races, including many from Viet Nam.

In the original Board of Inquiry ruling, chairperson Ajit John specifically concluded: "Neither the Commission nor the Complainant produced a witness who suggested that non-Asian tenants were given more favourable treatment than Asian tenants..."

Now, Elieff has been declared guilty of 'discrimination' against 'Cambodians' in particular, which was not the racial focus of the original hearings. Indeed, all participants before the original Board of Inquiry had to exercise particular discretion by referring to Elieff's tenants as 'Asian'. This was understandable, given that most government racial policies operate on the 'visible' difference factor, not on any ethnic or cultural distinctions within a particular 'visibly different' group.

It was the so-called 'Asian' community (led by non-Asian Rev. Susan Eagle) who campaigned to recruit a complainant against the landlord. It was mere chance that it happened to be a Cambodian tenant, Chippheng Hom, who agreed to file a complaint against the landlord.

In her filed complaint with the HRC, Hom wrote that "I learned of comments reportedly made public by Mr. Elieff that he felt his tenants of Cambodian ancestry regarded cockroaches as pets and that as Cambodians, 'They're like little pigs. They think they're still living in the jungle.'" Hom later contradicted this written statement before the Board of Inquiry when she testified that Elieff made the comments directly to her.

Both statements were untrue.

What the original November 8, 1989 London Free Press article ACTUALLY reported was: "Elijah Elieff largely blamed his tenants and their children --- mainly Asian immigrants --- for conditions at the two buildings. 'They're like little pigs,' he said Tuesday, 'They think they're still living in the jungle.'" The single reference to 'Cambodians' occurred mid-way through the article: "Elieff's apartments, home to many Cambodian families, have a history of complaints..."

Ironically, the decision that Elieff specifically discriminated against 'Cambodians' technically means that he did NOT discriminate against any of his Vietnamese tenants. Yet, they were part of the supposedly 'offended' community who originally helped seek out Hom as a complainant on their behalf.

Most disturbing in the Divisional Court's decision is the fact that there is not one single reference to, or acknowledgement of, any fact or argument which was presented by Mr. Elieff in his defence. There was certainly no need whatsoever for Mr. Elieff to even have attended court proceedings.

Of the fifteen pages in the court's decision, six and a half were exclusively devoted to the "question of whether interest may be awarded as part of a compensatory award." Another five pages were devoted to a historical account of the complaint and the original Board of Inquiry ruling. Only four of the fifteen pages deal with the court's actual ruling and its justifications, as reported above. Nowhere is there any reference to Mr. Elieff's defence.

"Except for the direction that the award be increased from $2500 to $6000, as aforesaid," concluded Southey, "the appeal is dismissed."

Though the Divisional Court acknowledged the role of the London Free Press in the creation of the 'poisoned environment', no responsibility was assigned to the paper, and no mention was made of the role or actions of Susan Eagle or of her direct connections with the London Free Press.

This is both tragic and unjust, since the evidence is incontrovertible that their 'community' campaign to smear Elieff's public reputation, not only as a landlord with respect to his tenants, but "as a businessman" with respect to his other business ventures, was the sole cause of an innocent man's downfall.

"Unfortunately, details such as this seem to be irrelevant to a justice system which values politically-correct agendas above justice," says Metz. "The very concept of justice demands that individuals be held responsible for their OWN actions, not for the actions of others. The Divisional Court's ruling on this case illustrates once again that this is not the kind of justice which exists in Ontario today."

e-mail

Page last updated on April 30, 2002