HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Warren Rill
Applicant
-and-
Kashruth Council of Canada, Mordichai Levin,
Meyer Feldman and Joel Richler
Respondents
CASE RESOLUTION CONFERENCE DECISION
Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim
Date: October 16, 2008
Citation: 2008 HRTO 161
Indexed as: Rill v. Kashruth Council of Canada
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
655 Bay Street, 14^th^ Floor
Toronto, ON M7A 2A3
Phone (416) 314-8419 / Fax (416) 314-8743 / Toll free 1-866-598-0322
TTY (416) 314-2379 / (toll free) 1-800-424-1168
E-mail HRTO.Registrar-Transition@ontario.ca
Website www.hrto.ca
APPEARANCES
Warren Rill, Applicant )
) on his own behalf
Kashruth Council of Canada, Mordichai Levin, ) Joel Richler on his own behalf
Meyer Feldman and Joel Richler, Respondents ) and on behalf of the respondents
[1] This is an Application filed September 17, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”)
[2] The respondents asked the Tribunal to dismiss the Application on the basis the applicant has not set out a factual basis that could rise to a finding of discrimination on a prohibited ground under the Code. The respondents’ request was heard on October 3, 2008 and all parties were permitted to make oral submissions.
[3] The respondents’ other preliminary objections need not be addressed in light of my decision.
[4] The applicant and the respondents have engaged in a protracted dispute over his termination as a kosher caterer. An earlier complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission was settled, in part, on agreement that the dispute would be referred to a rabbinical arbitration. This Application alleges comments made during that arbitration amounted to discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin, creed or race. Specifically, the applicant alleges the respondents made arguments and comments during the arbitration to suggest the applicant, who is not orthodox, was different from or could be treated differently from orthodox Jewish caterers.
Does the Application Disclose a Breach of the Code?
[5] Even if I accept the statements were made by the respondents, I am not satisfied this would amount to a breach of the Code. The purpose of the arbitration proceeding was to assess whether the Kashruth Council’s shomer Shabbat policy, which admittedly differentiated between orthodox and non-orthodox Jews, was valid or consistently applied. In that context, submissions or arguments on that issue do not amount to discrimination.
[6] Another element of the alleged discrimination is that the arbitrator stated during the course of the arbitration proceeding that orthodox Jewish persons would accept the word of another orthodox Jewish person over a non-orthodox Jewish person. Assuming this alleged fact to be true (and I note that the respondents submit that the comment is taken out of context) the arbitrator is not a named respondent to this Application, and his actions cannot result in a finding of discrimination against the named respondents.
[7] The applicant appeared frustrated by the potential lack of a forum before which to address his concerns about the fairness of the arbitration proceeding. The respondents submitted, and I agree, that challenges to the conduct of the arbitrator or the fairness of the arbitration proceedings could have been made under the Arbitrations Act, 1991 S.O. 1991, C. 17.
[8] The applicant also asserted in his Application that he signed the initial contract with the Kashruth Council under duress. This allegation relates to the applicant’s first complaint filed in 2004. Assuming this fact to be true, it does not amount to discrimination on a prohibited ground within the context of the present Application.
[9] I conclude that the applicant has not set out a factual basis that could give rise to a finding of discrimination on a prohibited ground under the Code. Accordingly, this Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 16^th^ day of October, 2008.
“Signed by”
_________________________________________
Kaye Joachim
Alternate Chair