Warren Rill v. Kashruth Council of Canada, 2008 HRTO 162

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Warren Rill

Applicant

-and-

Kashruth Council of Canada, Mordichai Levin, Blake, Cassels and Graydon LLP and Joel Richler

Respondents

CASE RESOLUTION CONFERENCE DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: October 16, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 162

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 Blake, Cassels and Graydon LLP and Joel Richler, ) and for the other respondents Respondents )

1This is an Application filed September 5, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The 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 in person on September 26, 2008 and all parties were permitted to make oral submissions.

3The applicant alleges the respondents refused to provide him with an application for certification as a kosher caterer. He alleges that this amounts to discrimination with respect to a contract on the basis of colour, ethnic origin, race and creed.

Prior History

4The following brief narrative is based on the documents filed at the hearing and not disputed by the parties.

5The Kashruth Council is a corporation that certifies products and establishments that comply, in its view, with the laws of kashrut (Jewish dietary laws).

6On November 26, 2004, the applicant filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission alleging that the Kashruth Council of Canada and Rabbi Levin had discriminated against him on the basis of creed when they terminated his contract to serve as a kosher caterer (the “first complaint”).

7In December 2006, the parties to the first complaint signed minutes of settlement whereby the Kashruth Council agreed, among other things, that the applicant could submit a claim against them to the Beth Din of America, a rabbinical tribunal.

8The applicant did submit a claim and an arbitration proceeding was held in Toronto in August and December 2007.

9On February 4, 2008 the Beth Din of America rendered a decision denying the applicant’s claim. Shortly after this decision was issued, the applicant telephoned the Kashruth Council requesting an application to become a kosher caterer. The inquiry was directed to the Council’s counsel, the respondent Richler, who was instructed to refuse the request. Richler complied with this direction.

Does the Application disclose a breach of the Code?

10The applicant submits he attempted to re-apply to become a kosher caterer in February 2008 because he understood the Kashruth Council’s policy permitted a non-orthodox caterer to be certified so long as an orthodox mashgiach was present at all times to supervise the cooking process. He was prepared to do this.

11The applicant conceded he had no facts or evidence to support his belief that he was refused an application because of his colour, race or ethnic origin. As a result, the only question I need to consider is whether there is a sufficient basis in the Application to support the applicant’s allegation that he experienced discrimination because of creed.

12The applicant stated that he believed that, contrary to their policy, the respondents refused to allow him to re-apply because he is not orthodox or shomer Shabbat. Asked to identify some facts or evidence that he might call to support his Application, the applicant stated that he believed there was a case where an orthodox Jewish person who had been previously decertified, was subsequently recertified. The only difference between the two cases, the applicant alleged, was that the other caterer is orthodox and the applicant is not.

13It is undisputed that the Kashruth Council policy does not require that a caterer be orthodox or shomer Shabbat. Indeed, the applicant was previously certified although he was not orthodox. In these specific circumstances the vague assertion that one orthodox caterer was recertified while the applicant was not permitted to re-apply is not sufficient to support the allegation the refusal to provide an application to the applicant was in any way related to his creed or to shift the evidentiary burden to the respondents.

14I accept the respondents’ argument the applicant has failed to identify any facts which could support a finding of breach of the Code. Accordingly, this Application is dismissed.