Nunavut housing authority appeals wait list ruling in Rankin Inlet

Donna Tatty and her three children are now in social housing in Rankin Inlet but the Rankin Inlet Housing Authority is still appealing a decision that allowed her to get a unit in order to overturn a precedent set by the lower court over the issue of “residency.” (PHOTO BY THOMAS ROHNER)

A Rankin Inlet single-mother booted off the hamlet’s social housing waitlist, and then reinstated after a judicial intervention, may once again have her housing status overturned.

That will depend on the decision of a three-member appeals tribunal following an appeal by the Rankin Inlet Housing Authority at the Nunavut Court of Justice in Iqaluit, May 9.

The RIHA wants to overturn a 2015 decision by Nunavut Justice Andrew Mahar that returned Donna Tatty—a single mother of three—to her spot on the Rankin Inlet waitlist for public housing after she was removed for seeking “temporary” housing in Churchill, Manitoba in 2013.

Tatty’s lawyer, James Morton, reminded the appeals court by phone that Mahar accepted Tatty’s move as temporary and had done it because she had no other option.

“If someone is forced from a community because they have no other reason—to say that the forced leaving of the community equates to voluntary leaving is not reasonable,” Morton said.

But the greater issue at hand, Morton argued, was the legal definition of “residency,” and whether the RIHA correctly applied that term, given Tatty’s circumstances.

RIHA’s lawyer, Jon Rossall, argued that because the housing authority is a private entity, its authority to define residency within its own bylaws falls outside the scope of the court’s authority.

Morton countered that the RIHA does not hold a monopoly on the term, and that residency is a universal legal term that the court can rule on.

“The concept of residency or residing is one of significant legal consequence, and does not narrowly fall within the bylaw here,” Morton said.

In Rankin Inlet, like many other Nunavut communities, social housing is in short supply and about 100 people are on the waiting list for new housing.

Donna Tatty’s position on the waiting list was number 16 when she went to Churchill in 2013 to find housing.

While attending a parenting workshop in Churchill, Tatty learned of available public housing there. She made an application, received housing, and relocated with her children to Churchill on May 10, 2013.

Before the move, in April 2013, Tatty said she told the housing association about her decision to relocate.

Rossall told the court that Tatty never informed the RIHA that her move was temporary, despite being warned that by relocating to Churchill she would forfeit her priority on the waitlist.

“The evidence is quite clear she was told on three occasions that if she relocated to Churchill she would no longer be on the waiting list,” he said.

“She knew the system.”

The RIHA board responsible for the original removal of Tatty had to implement a “common sense rationale to residency,” Rossall said.

The deal-breaker was that Tatty signed an official document accepting the social housing in Churchill.

“Had Ms. Tatty gone to Churchill and stayed with friends for three months, there might have been a different decision,” Rossall said.

Prior to relocating to Churchill, Tatty and her children were effectively “couch surfing” with family, Morton told the court, and the disruption and instability was creating conflict within the household.

“The tribunal appears to have decided if you leave Rankin for any reason, for a temporary time, for whatever reason, you’re taken off the list,” Morton said.

Should the appeals tribunal overturn Mahar’s decision, Morton requested that it suggest no further recourse be taken against Tatty.

Tatty and her children successfully moved into social housing in Rankin Inlet following Mahar’s decision.

Rossall told the court that he couldn’t speak for his client, but would recommend the same course of action.

“I would be surprised if the authority evicted her,” he told the court, but added that repealing the decision is important so that candidates on the social housing waitlist, now and in future, don’t try to take advantage of similar circumstances.

The three-judge appeals panel reserved its decision, to be released at a later date.