Amending and Enforcing the Law

• Author: Alan Borovoy
• Pages: 53-73

• 53 •

chapter four

Amending and

Enforcing the Law

Within a couple of years before I started at the Labour Commit-

tee, a Toronto landlord had refused to rent one of his many apartments

to a black family. He explained that this was strictly a business deci-

sion; he did not want to alienate his other tenants. Perhaps the fact that

I knew some members of the landlord’s family made me particularly

angry over this act of discrimination. Certain subsequent events exacer-

bated the situation: a board of inquiry headed by a judge actually ruled

that housing was not then covered by our anti-discrimination laws.

Moreover, Ontario’s premier of the day, Leslie Frost, reportedly told a

delegation from the Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL) that the prov-

ince was not “ready” for a law against housing discrimination.

All of these circumstances collaborated to convince me that the

quest for such legislation should enjoy high priority on my agenda for

things to do. Fortunately, my national director, Sid Blum, and my local

Labour Committee were enthusiastically supportive. With my arrival on

the job, therefore, the campaign began.

The idea was to publicize real cases of discrimination and to set up

test cases and conduct surveys to dramatize the breadth of the miscon-

duct. But the campaign had hardly gotten under way when a real case

arose. In September 1959, a bare couple of months after I started at

the Labour Committee, the Toronto Telegram reported an incident in St.

Catharines, Ontario. Soon after having rented an apartment to a black

• 54 •

“at the barricades”

couple, a landlady served a notice of eviction on them. According to the

landlady, certain neighbours complained about having blacks in the area.

On the day the matter was reported, Telegram reporter Gord Donald-

son telephoned me to ensure that I was aware of the case. Shortly after

that telephone call, I got into my car and headed for St. Catharines. Dur-

ing the course of the drive, my mind was working overtime. I felt the

need to come up with an idea that would either persuade the landlady to

recant or, at the very least, keep the issue boiling in the press.

The drive was just long enough for me to produce a bright idea. I

would compose and circulate a petition among the neighbours; it would

be addressed to the landlady and it would tell her that the undersigned

neighbours had no objection to having a black family living that close to

them. At the time, I didn’t really know what response I would get. But

I thought that the petition would enable our side to win a victory either

way. If the neighbours signed, the landlady might change her mind;

if the neighbours refused to sign, the press would likely carry a story

about the need for remedial legislation.

To my delight, the neighbours overwhelmingly, and without hesi-

tation, signed the petition as I had drafted it. Only one man refused

to sign. Of course, I asked him for an explanation. The man looked

around at what was a dilapidated area and said that he was opposed to

having blacks live there because they would “ruin the neighbourhood.”

At that point, I went to the landlady’s place and showed her the pe-

tition. By then, the Tely reporter had also joined us. As I reviewed the

matter with the woman, I detected some equivocation. On the spot, I

drafted a revocation of eviction notice and asked her to consider signing

it. With the press watching, I urged her to sign. Within a short while,

she did. With that, the landlady, the reporter, and I went to the apart-

ment of the black family, delivered the revocation to them, shook hands,

and took pictures. The next day, the Telegram ran a story with pictures

of the landlady, the black family, and the petition. The headline of the

story was “Neighbours Rally Behind Negroes — Hate Monger Loses.”1

Fortunately, the story also contained some quotes from me about

the need for legislation to deal with housing discrimination. After all,

I argued, victory in this case was not enough; how many others were

being denied housing simply because of irrelevant factors such as race,

creed, and colour?