Shroff v. Tipco Inc., 2009 HRTO 1405

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Abbas Shroff

Applicant

-and-

Tipco Inc., John Ferrone, Satesh Shiwkaran and Rosemary Riina

Respondents

case Resolution Conference DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: September 4, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1405

Indexed as: Shroff v. Tipco

AppearanceS BY

Abbas Shroff, Applicant ) Cecil Norman, ) Representative

Tipco Inc., John Ferrone, Satesh Shiwkaran ) John Ferrone, and Rosemary Riina , Respondents ) Representative

1This is an Application filed on September 30, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges he experienced discrimination in employment on the basis of his ancestry, creed, disability, ethnic origin, marital status, place of origin and sex.

2This Case Resolution Conference (“CRC” or “hearing”) was held in Toronto on June 25, 2009 in accordance with the expectation, expressed in the Code and the Tribunal’s Rules, that section 53(3) applications proceed in a highly expeditious manner. I heard from Mr. Shroff; the personal respondents: John Ferrone, President of the respondent corporation, Satesh Shiwkaran and Rosemary Riina; and from Jose Martinez, Arjun Bhagubbai, Aref Tofigh and Bibi Khamis, all employees of the respondent corporation who worked with Mr. Shroff.

3Mr. Shroff who self identifies as a south asian male and a muslim alleges that his former employer, the respondent corporation tolerated a poisoned work environment wherein he was subject to continual harassment by his fellow employees, most particularly the respondent Satesh Shiwkaran. Mr. Shiwkaran was made a team leader in Mr. Shroff’s work area in 2002. At the time of the promotion, Mr. Shroff alleges that he sought a transfer but his request was refused by the Warehouse Manager.

4There are three main elements to the allegations of harassment and discrimination. Mr. Shroff alleges that there was what he characterized as a two class system for workers employed by the respondent corporation based on the colour of their skin. In this regard, he cited the example of white employees being given Kleenex, while he and other persons of colour would be given toilet paper.

5Second. Mr Shroff alleges that he was subject to harassment and discrimination, in particular by Mr. Shiwkaran, because of the difficulties Mr. Shroff and his wife were having conceiving a child. Mr. Shroff took some time off work in the year 2000 so that he and his wife could obtain medical follow-up in relation to their fertility issues. Upon his return, he alleges he was subject to verbal taunting and abuse by Mr. Shiwkaran because of a perceived inability to conceive a child. Mr. Shroff alleges that he confided in Mr. Tofigh and that he passed on the confidence to Mr. Shiwkaran. Mr. Shroff alleges that Mr. Shiwkaran began referring to Mr. Shroff as “bati boy”. When Mr. Shroff asked what this meant, he was told it meant that he did not know how to have sex with his wife. Mr. Shiwkaran allegedly offered to sleep with Mr. Shroff’s wife on many occasions.

6Mr. Shroff alleges that he reported this abuse to Aref Tofegh, the Plant Manager, and Ms. Riina (Human Resources Coordinator). Ms. Riina allegedly told Mr. Shroff to ignore it and the abuse would stop.

7The final aspect of the harassment and discrimination claim is that he was subject to verbal taunting and name calling on the basis of his creed, place of origin, ethnic origin and ancestry after the attacks on the United States in September 2001. Immediately after September 11, Mr. Shroff alleges that Mr. Shiwkaran and others began calling him derogatory names, such as Muslim murderer, Sadam Osama, Allah and bin Laden. On several occasions, it is alleged that Mr. Shiwkaran asked Mr. Shroff in the presence of co-workers where Osama was going to bomb next.

8Mr. Shroff alleges that he reported these issues to management repeatedly but management’s response was that he should try to ignore the harassment and it would go away. He claims in the complaint to have documented these events and reported them to Ms. Riina. He further claims that eventually Ms. Riina became frustrated with his complaints and Mr. Shroff alleges that Ms. Riina on two occasions called him Mr. Troublemaker. Mr. Shroff also alleged that he asked Ms. Riina if he could speak with Mr. Ferrone or Mr. Tikkins, the owner of the respondent corporation, and was told by her to be careful.

9Mr. Shroff alleges that on his final day of work, November 7, 2005, he was subject to verbal abuse by Mr. Shiwkaran arising out of a dispute over what work Mr. Shroff should be performing. Amongst other things said to him, Mr. Shroff alleges that Mr. Shiwkaran called him “bati boy” and asked for his phone number so that Mr. Shiwkaran could make a date with his wife. Mr. Shroff alleges that when he warned Mr. Shiwkaran to stop harassing him, Mr. Shiwkaran responded that Mr. Shroff had already reported him to management at work, so now Mr. Shroff should take it up with the prime minister. The dispute was taken to the Warehouse Manager, Mr. Tofegh, who, Mr. Shroff alleges, told him to go back to his machine and do his work, or go home and never come back. Mr. Shroff alleges that he decided to go home and “cited constructive dismissal”. Mr. Shroff alleges that he was escorted to his locker by Mr. Shiwkaran and Mr. Tofegh. Later the same day, Mr. Shroff alleges that he spoke to Mr. Ferrone, who told him that that there was nothing he could do for him.

10On November 9, 2005, Mr. Shroff suffered chest pains and attended the emergency department of the William Osler Health Centre. Mr. Shroff alleges that he was diagnosed with work related stress and high blood pressure which he attributes to the poisoned work environment.

Decision

11The Application is allowed in part. The essence of the complaint as framed by Mr. Shroff was that he was forced out of the workplace by a poisoned work environment created by his treatment by the respondent Satesh Shiwkaran. I find for reasons set out below that although Mr. Shroff’s Code rights were violated by the respondent Shiwkaran, the conduct did not create a poisoned work environment. I also find that the corporate respondent is responsible for the conduct of Mr. Shiwkaran.

12First a note about credibility. In general terms, with two notable exceptions, the witnesses gave their evidence in a straightforward and forthright way. Their evidence was generally believable. The evidence of Mr. Shroff and Mr. Shiwkaran, was less reliable.

13Mr. Shroff’s case was rife with difficulties. In the complaint, he makes allegations that simply cannot be correct. For example, he stated that when the name calling related to his inability or perceived inability to conceive a child started in the summer of 2000, he reported this to Ms. Riina. Ms. Riina did not start working at Tipco Inc. until 2003. A similar claim is made in respect of the name calling that is said to have begun after September 11, 2001. At the hearing, he offered no explanation for these palpable errors in the complaint.

14Mr. Shroff often exaggerated in the complaint, and then when challenged to elaborate at the hearing would retract much of what is set out in the pleadings. For example, he claims to have complained of the name calling to management repeatedly, in one instance saying he reported it to Mr. Ferrone every two weeks. When asked to elaborate on any of these alleged discussions, he was unable to do so. In the end, he testified that on perhaps one or two occasions he told Mr. Ferrone about the name calling.

15In his complaint and statement of additional fact, Mr. Shroff alleged that on his final day of work Mr. Shiwkaran approached him, called him “bati boy” and asked for his wife’s phone number so that he could visit her after work. This incident is said to have occurred about 2:00 o’clock after the overtime assignments had been done. Mr. Shroff claimed to have agreed to work overtime that evening. At the hearing, he initially reiterated this version of events, except that he did not say that Mr. Shiwkaran called him “bati boy”. However, when asked to describe his work day and the events leading up to this final incident in detail, a version of events much more consistent with the respondents’ narrative emerged. Mr. Shroff confirmed, more or less, that the dispute between the two men was about a work assignment. Mr. Shiwkaran asked him why he was working on the job he was and not another one that Mr. Shiwkaran thought should have priority. Mr. Shroff declined to follow Mr. Shiwkaran’s direction. The two men began arguing as they often did, about work assignments. Mr. Shroff felt put upon because as an experienced worker he was often asked by the employer to take on the more difficult and often rush tasks. This was an ongoing source of conflict between Mr. Shiwkaran and Mr. Shroff and on that day the argument escalated beyond the usual. At some point in that verbal altercation, Mr. Shroff testified that Mr. Shiwkaran asked for his wife’s phone number to make a date.

16By way of further examples of his mis-speaking in the complaint, Mr. Shroff claimed that he contacted the Ontario Human Rights Commission in 2000 and was told to document the treatment he was receiving. He also stated at the hearing that he documented the name calling and other abuse and reported it to Ms. Riina. None of this documentation was produced prior to the hearing. When asked about this, Mr. Shroff stated that he destroyed it all but could not say why he had done so, an inexplicable response if the alleged abuse was as long-lasting, pervasive and upsetting as Mr. Shroff claims it was.

17Mr. Shroff also alleged that Mr. Tofegh betrayed a confidence when he spread the story that Mr. Shroff was unable to conceive, but had no evidence that this had happened. At the hearing, he seems to have agreed that he himself told some of his fellow employees that there were medical complications that were preventing him and his wife from having children.

18The evidence of Mr. Shiwkaran was at least as unreliable as that of Mr. Shroff. Mr. Shiwkaran simply denied everything and in respect of several important points was contradicted by other current employees of the corporate respondent. I do not accept Mr. Shiwkaran’s evidence on the main points at issue.

19Accordingly, unless corroborated by other evidence, I am by and large unable to accept the evidence of either of Mr. Shroff or Mr. Shiwkaran.

20With respect to Mr. Shroff’s allegation that there was a two class system at place in the work place, there is no evidence that this was the case. Mr. Shroff was not able to confirm the content of his allegations as set out in the complaint. I also heard a good deal of evidence from various witnesses and there appears to have been a rule, although not everyone seemed to be aware of it, that plant floor staff when asking for something to clean their safety glasses would be given toilet paper. In my view, such a rule or practice is not a violation of the Code.

21Mr. Shroff’s evidence of harassment in the form of name calling related to his creed, place of origin, ethnic origin and ancestry was more in the nature of assertions rather than evidence of real life events. When asked to elaborate and describe when and in what circumstances this name calling occurred, he was unable to do so. No one else in the workplace was able to confirm that such name calling had ever occurred. This does not mean that it did not happen at all – it is quite possible that Mr.Shiwkaran, who by all accounts was abusive of his work colleagues, may have on occasion engaged in such verbal taunting of Mr. Shroff. However, the fact that no other employee was able to confirm hearing anything like what Mr. Shroff claimed suggests that such name calling and verbal harassment was a rare or isolated event, and I find did not constitute a course of conduct. The Application as it relates to those allegations is dismissed.

22The more substantial issue arising from the evidence is whether or not the alleged name calling and disrespectful references to Mr. Shroff’s wife related to their perceived or actual inability to conceive a child, constitutes discrimination or harassment under the Code. A related question is whether this course of conduct was sufficiently egregious to create a poisoned work environment, such that Mr. Shroff’s decision to leave his employment was justified. Finally, there is an issue of whether or not the employer was actually aware of the alleged conduct, or whether they are deemed to have known because the perpetrator of the impugned conducted was the agent of the employer, in this case, a Team Leader.

Was Mr. Shroff harassed in respect of his disability or perceived disability, sex or marital status?

23Despite the shortcomings in the evidence of Mr. Shroff, I find that there is sufficient evidence to support his contention that he was subject to a course of vexatious conduct that Mr. Shiwkaran knew or ought reasonably have known would be unwelcome. In particular, I find that Ms. Shiwkaran referred to Mr. Shroff as “bati boy”, a pejorative term that was reasonably interpreted by Mr. Shroff as being a reference to Ms. Shroff’s inability to conceive a child and more generally a derogatory attack on Mr. Shroff’s manhood. I also find that Mr. Shiwkaran on occasion, although this is less clear, did make unwanted and offensive references to Mr. Shroff’s wife, again in reference to Mr. and Ms. Shroff’s apparent inability to conceive a child.

24As indicated above, several of Mr. Shroff’s co-workers gave evidence. Mr. Martinez confirmed that he heard Mr. Shiwkaran refer to Mr. Shroff as “bati boy”, “occasionally”. He also testified that Mr. Shiwkaran referred to Mr. Martinez and others in the plant as “girl”. Mr. Martinez agreed that Mr. Shiwkaran’s treatment of his co-workers might be felt to be abusive or harassment although that he was not personally troubled by being called “girl” and treated it as a joke. Mr. Shiwkaran agreed that he may have referred to Mr. Martinez and others as “girl” but only on his own time, i.e., on breaks or on lunch. Mr. Martinez had never heard any rumours about Mr. Shroff and his wife being unable to have children.

25Mr. Bhagubbai, who worked in close proximity to Mr. Shroff and was close to him in some ways because they shared the same mother tongue and would converse through the work day, testified that he did not hear the term “bati boy” in the work place and had never heard it. When told that it is a pejorative for “gay” or homosexual, he testified that he did not really know what “gay” was, but was certain that he had never heard the expression. He also testified that he had never heard any rumours about Mr. Shroff and had no idea that he and his wife were unable to conceive a child. Mr. Bhagubbai also testified that Mr. Shroff did complain to him about Mr. Shiwkaran. He testified that these complaints were about work assignments and that Mr. Bhagubbai told him to go speak to management about it.

26Bibi Khamis is an expediter, whose work place is physically separated from where Mr. Shroff worked and who would not necessarily hear much of the workplace banter. She testified that she never heard Mr. Shiwkaran call Mr. Shroff “bati boy” although she was familiar with the term and understood that it was a Guyanese pejorative for gay men. She testified that Mr. Shiwkaran would know what it meant because he is Guyanese. She also testified that shortly before Mr. Shroff left the workplace, he complained to her that he was being harassed by Mr. Shiwkaran. She did not enquire about the nature of the harassment. She did know that the two men were often in conflict over work issues. Her advice to Mr. Shroff, she testified, was that he should take his complaint to management. She does not know if he did. Ms. Khamis had never heard any rumours circulating about Mr. Shroff and his wife being unable to have children.

27I accept the evidence of Mr. Martinez that Mr. Shiwkaran referred to Mr. Shroff as “bati boy” occasionally, and that this name calling recurred over a period of time. I do not accept Mr. Shiwkaran’s denial of ever using the term. Mr. Martinez, a current employee of the corporate respondent, has no reason to make this up; indeed the incentives to deny having heard anything are obvious. I find that this name calling and the comments made by Mr. Shiwkaran about having a sexual encounter with Mr. Shroff’s wife, were made in relation to Mr. Shroff’s actual or perceived infertility and accordingly were an attack on his maleness and accordingly harassment on the basis of sex. Whether or not infertility or in this case perceived infertility is a disability under the Code is an interesting question which I decline to determine in this context given the absence of evidence about the nature of the fertility problem and the weight of the evidence pointing to the conclusion that the perception of infertility served as a proxy for sex. I also find that the conduct was not harassment in respect of his marital status. The abusive behaviour was not related to the fact that Mr. Shroff was a married person but again was focussed on Mr. Shroff’s sex because Mr. Shiwkaran seems to have understood that Mr. Shroff and his wife were unable to have children.

28On the other hand, I find that this abusive treatment was not a daily or even a routine occurrence as claimed by Mr. Shroff. If it had been, Ms. Khamis or Mr. Bhagubbai, despite his being completely unfamiliar with the term “bati boy”, would likely have been able to confirm the treatment. The absence of any other indication that the treatment of Mr. Shroff was pervasive tends to confirm Mr. Martinez’s evidence that Mr. Shiwkaran’s use of the pejorative term was occasional but may have been persistent over a period of time, being one of the ways in which Mr. Shiwkaran played out the ongoing conflict between the two men.

29Related to this issue is Mr. Shroff’s allegation that Mr. Tofegh betrayed a confidence and spread rumours through Mr. Shiwkaran about his real or perceived infertility. There is no reliable evidence that anyone in management other than Mr. Shiwkaran had any idea about Mr. Shroff’s and his wife’s medical issues until Mr. Shroff told Ms. Riina in early 2005. Ms. Riina testified that she learned of Mr. Shroff and his wife’s inability to conceive in a casual conversation in the spring of 2005. No one else who testified knew anything about Mr. Shroff’s and his wife’s medical issues prior to his filing of the complaint. I note in particular Mr. Bhagubbai’s evidence that he knew nothing, even though he and Mr. Shroff worked closely together. Mr. Shroff’s allegation that management had deliberately spread rumours of his issues and that everyone in the workplace knew about them is unfounded.

Was the respondent corporation aware of the harassment?

30There is no reliable evidence that anyone beyond the shop floor was aware of this occasional but recurring behaviour of Mr. Shiwkaran. Mr. Shroff’s allegation of his repeated and continuing complaints to Ms Riina, Mr. Tofegh and Mr. Ferrone evaporated at the hearing.

31Mr. Tofegh testified that Mr. Shroff never approached him with complaints of harassment by Mr. Shiwkaran. He testified that if he had, steps would have been taken to deal with the issue. He agreed that if Mr. Shroff’s allegations were substantiated they represented a serious issue that would have to be dealt with. He testified that as a Baha’i from Iran he had experienced discrimination in a number of contexts. He testified that he understood his obligation as a supervisor. He denied having any detailed understanding of Mr. Shroff’s medical issues and denies betraying Mr. Shroff’s confidence by spreading rumours of his infertility. I accept his evidence.

32Mr. Ferrone testified to the same effect. I accept his evidence.

33Ms. Riina testified that Mr. Shroff did complain about payroll issues and health and safety matters. She also testified that he did complain about Mr. Shiwkaran but that the complaints related to the work that he was being asked to do and nothing else. I accept her evidence. I find that Mr. Shroff never raised his concerns about Mr. Shiwkaran’s inappropriate behaviour and harassment of him with Ms. Riina, Mr. Tofegh or Mr. Ferrone.

34Mr. Shroff relied in the alternative on the fact that Mr. Shiwkaran was a Team Leader and therefore whether Mr. Ferrone, Ms. Riina or Mr. Tofegh had actual knowledge of Mr. Shiwkaran’s treatment of him was immaterial.

35The evidence was that Mr. Shiwkaran had very limited supervisory responsibility. He could not hire, fire or discipline. However, he did direct work flow and he was able to take disciplinary issues to Mr. Tofegh as he did on November 7th when he got into a dispute with Mr. Shroff over what work was to be done and took it to Mr. Tofegh for resolution. The principles of vicarious corporate liability, sometimes referred to as the “organic theory of corporate liability” are relatively well established in law, see for example McKinnon v. Ministry of Correctional Services, [1998] O.H.R.B.I.D. No. 10 (QL) at paras. 277 to 279. In these circumstances, I find that Mr. Shiwkaran had some functions of management and was part of the “directing mind” of the organization; accordingly the corporate respondent is liable for the violations of the Code by Mr. Shiwkaran.

Was Mr. Shroff’s leaving the workplace a justified response to the harassment:

36Mr. Tofegh testified that on the morning of Mr. Shroff’s departure from the workplace he heard from both men. Based on what he was told, the dispute was about what work Mr. Shroff was supposed to be doing. Mr. Tofegh testified that when they arrived at his office they were both visibly upset and shouting at each other. He heard from Mr. Shiwkaran first and then from Mr. Shroff. Mr. Shroff, according to Mr. Tofegh, complained about the work and that he was always getting the hard jobs. Mr. Tofegh testified that he told Mr. Shroff to calm down and said to him that the good work that he did for this company was appreciated but that he wished that Mr. Shroff would stop complaining whenever he was asked to do a rush or tough job. Mr. Tofegh testified that he told Mr. Shroff to go back and finish working on the job he was supposed to be doing, or leave the workplace. Mr. Tofegh testified that Mr. Shroff said nothing before leaving his office. Mr. Tofegh did not know what Mr. Shroff was going to do until a short time later when he was seen leaving the workplace.

37Mr. Shroff does not allege that he told Mr. Tofegh about the name calling or his treatment at the hand of Mr. Shiwkaran; rather he says that he did not get a chance to do so. This suggestion seems inconsistent with how Mr. Shroff otherwise describes the meeting. I find there was nothing to prevent Mr. Shroff from getting his concern on the table if he had chosen to, and if it was the use of the term “bati boy” or the disrespectful references to his wife that had caused the altercation it would have been expected that he would do so. His job was on the line at this point and he had no explanation for not at least raising the issue. Mr. Shroff also does not allege that he told Mr. Ferrone of the alleged harassment by Mr. Shiwkaran, when he spoke to him on the phone later the same day.

38For Mr. Tofegh, it was a straightforward issue of whether or not Mr. Shroff was going to do the work that was assigned to him or whether he was going to leave the workplace and his employment. Mr. Shroff testified that he chose to leave his employment. He testified that he was under more stress than normal that day because his mother was ill and in the hospital. When asked why he decided to quit, he cited the stress associated with his mother’s illness as the determinative factor.

39I find that Mr. Shroff left the workplace because he was under a certain amount of stress because of his mother’s illness and had had enough of Mr. Shiwkaran and what he felt were unfair workplace demands placed upon him. It is not clear that Mr. Shiwkaran engaged in any of the offensive name calling on that final day. In any event, I have concluded that the name calling was not sufficiently persistent to create a poisoned work environment and in the absence of any evidence that Mr. Shiwkaran raised it with Mr. Tofegh, there is no basis for concluding that Mr. Shroff’s quitting his job was a justified response.

Remedies:

40I have found that Mr. Shiwkaran has violated the Code by engaging in a pattern of vexatious conduct that he knew or ought to have known would be unwelcome by Mr. Shroff, and that this conduct amounted to discrimination on the basis of sex. These comments were recurring but occasional, and while constituting harassment did not create a poisoned work environment. I also have found that although the employer had no actual knowledge of this behaviour, because Mr. Shiwkaran was a team leader, did direct the workforce and had some limited authority to direct Mr. Shroff’s work, it is responsible for the actions of Mr. Shiwkaran and what occurred in this workplace.

41Mr. Shroff made a number of claims for remedies including lost wages and general damages. Mr. Shroff also requested a remedy for future compliance in the nature of training for Ms. Riina, Mr. Ferrone and Mr. Shiwkaran, requiring them to undergo human rights training from a third party approved by the Human Rights Commission.

42As I have concluded that Mr. Shroff’s decision to leave his employment was not justified by the harassment that he did experience, there is no basis for an award of special damages.

43No evidence on remedy was called by either party. No submissions were made by Mr. Shroff on the remedial issues.

44As indicated, it appears that Mr. Shroff was treated for stress after leaving his employment but there was no evidence that would connect this condition to any of the behaviour of Mr. Shiwkaran. A document entitled confidential consultation report was produced for the first time at the hearing. The respondents objected to its introduction. The author of the report was not available for examination. The report, which is dated June 14, 2006 diagnoses Mr. Shroff as suffering from “a major depressive disorder, single continuous episode, severe with anxiety features and psycho-social stressors”. The note does not speculate on the causes of Mr. Shroff’s depressive disorder and therefore is largely irrelevant. I also note that Mr. Shroff lost time from work in September 2005 after sustaining injuries in a car accident. In the absence of any evidence of a connection between the conduct of Mr. Shiwkaran and Mr. Shroff’s stress, I am not prepared to find that Mr. Shroff’s medical condition was in any way connected to Mr. Shiwkaran’s treatment of him.

45The essence of the human rights complaint underlying this Application was about treatment so intolerable that Mr. Shroff was entitled to leave the workplace and claim that he had been constructively dismissed. The evidence fell far short of establishing a poisoned work environment. While there was conflict between Mr. Shroff and Mr. Shiwkaran, a significant element of it was a result of Mr. Shroff’s perception that he was being treated unfairly by the employer. Mr. Shroff holds Mr. Shiwkaran responsible for him having lost his job; however, I have found that the impugned behaviour of Mr. Shiwkaran was not a significant factor in Mr. Shroff’s decision to leave the workplace and his employment on November 7, 2005. On the evidence, Mr. Shroff left the workplace because he had had enough of this workplace for a number of reasons but that his quitting his work that day was not a justified response to the Code violations that he had likely experienced.

46In the absence of any evidence from Mr. Shroff of the impact of Mr. Shiwkaran’s treatment of him, nothing more than a modest award is justified. I find that Mr. Shiwkaran and Tipco Inc. are jointly and severally liable to pay to Mr. Shroff general damages in the amount of $2,000.

47As regards the training sought by the applicant, it is clear from their evidence, that Mr. Ferrone and Mr. Tofegh were not insensitive to their obligations under the Code. Ms. Riina no longer is employed by Tipco Inc.. I also note that the Order sought by the applicant requires the Ontario Human Rights Commission to approve the third party providing the training. The Human Rights Commission is not a party to this proceeding and its consent to such an Order was not sought. In the absence of the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s view on the Order sought, I decline to make it in all the circumstances.

ORDER

48The Tribunal makes the following Orders:

a. The respondents, Satesh Shiwkaran and Tipco Inc. are jointly and severally liable to pay to Mr. Shroff the amount of $2,000 inclusive of interest, as general damages for the violations of the Code.

b. The Application as it relates to John Ferrone and Rosemary Riina is dismissed.