Carolyn Bahen v. Peppermill and Albert Sommer, 2009 HRTO 1562

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Carolyn Bahen

Applicant

-and-

Peppermill and Albert Sommer

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha

Date: September 28, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1562

Indexed as: Bahen v. Peppermill

APPEARANCES

Carolyn Bahen, Applicant ) On her own behalf

Peppermill and Albert Sommer, Respondents ) Richard H. Parker, Q.C., counsel

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on September 3, 2008, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, place of origin, ethnic origin, sex and threat of reprisal. The respondents filed a Response on November 24, 2008, and the applicant filed a Reply on March 4, 2009.

2The hearing in this matter took place on September 25, 2009. Neither party sought to admit any additional documentary evidence or call any witnesses other than themselves. Each party made short opening statements outlining their respective positions and the facts they intended to prove in support of their case.

3The applicant expressed a desire to give her testimony from the position in the back corner of the hearing room where she was seated rather than from the witness stand at the front of the room. The respondents did not consent to this request. I sought to ascertain from the applicant whether her request was based on any Code-related reasons. She indicated simply that the personal respondent is a “liar” and that she refuses to face him or to move from her place at the back of the hearing room. She further stated that she felt her case was clear enough from the Application and that I could easily reach a conclusion that discrimination occurred on the basis of her written allegations. The applicant and the personal respondent then engaged in mutual name-calling and shouting, disregarding attempts to calm the situation by respondents’ counsel and me.

4I indicated to the applicant that without the respondents’ consent, and absent a compelling reason, she would have to give her evidence from the witness stand, in accordance with the Tribunal’s practice. The applicant shouted further abuse at the personal respondent, as well as at me, and stormed out of the hearing room.

5A Tribunal application is a legal proceeding, which requires respectful participation by parties and compliance with the Tribunal’s Rules. If a violation of the Code is found, the Tribunal may order a respondent to make monetary compensation or other forms of restitution to the applicant and to take steps to future promote compliance with the Code.

6In this case, the applicant has failed to introduce any evidence whatsoever to establish a case of discrimination. Allegations in an Application are not facts on which I can rely to make a finding of discrimination unless they are admitted by a respondent or I accept them as evidence proven on a balance of probabilities. While the applicant claims that many people were witness to a number of her allegations, she failed to produce any witnesses at the hearing. In refusing to take the stand herself, she failed to put before me the only evidence she has to support her allegations, being her own testimony.

7An applicant has the responsibility to bring forward evidence to prove her allegations. If she does not, there is no evidence to support her allegation of discrimination, and there is no reason to require the respondents to provide evidence.

8I therefore conclude that the applicant has failed to provide any evidence to support her claim of discrimination. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.