Monique Mayers v. Marca College of Hair & Esthetics, 2009 HRTO 2150

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Monique Mayers

Applicant

-and-

Marca College of Hair & Esthetics, Cheri Medica and Norma Gagnon

Respondents

CASE RESOLUTION CONFERENCE DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: December 10, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2150

Indexed as: Mayers v. Marca College of Hair & Esthetics

APPEARANCES BY

Monique Mayers, Applicant ) On her own behalf

Marca College of Hair & Esthetics, ) David M. Goodman,

Cheri Medica and Norma Gagnon, Respondents ) Counsel )

1This Application was filed on December 31, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2A Case Resolution Conference (“hearing”) was held on December 3, 2009 to hear the evidence in the Application. In accordance with the expectation that transitional applications be conducted in a manner that is fair, just and expeditious, I adopted the following procedure. The applicant had filed detailed statements of facts which I marked as exhibits and she affirmed as her evidence. The respondents had filed witness statements that they also adopted. After questioning from me, the parties were offered the opportunity to cross examine each other’s witnesses.

3The applicant alleges that she was discriminated against on the basis of race and colour in the provision of goods and services, contrary to sections 1 and 9 of the Code.

4The applicant self-identifies as a Black woman. She registered as a student at Marca College in its esthetics program from November 6, 2006 to March 28, 2007. The applicant alleges the make-up kit provided by the respondent College did not contain products appropriate for persons with darker skin tones. She alleges this was discriminatory. She further alleges that when she complained about the inadequacy of the kit she was expelled and this act was also discriminatory. The applicant’s statement of facts also contained detailed complaints about the inadequacy of the esthetics program.

5I am satisfied, based on the applicant’s evidence, that the make-up kit provided did not contain products for all skin tones. After receiving the applicant’s complaint, the respondents ordered two foundations in darker shades. They did not arrive until after the applicant was expelled.

6However, in my view, this does not amount to discrimination in the provision of services. While I agree that, given Toronto’s ethnic diversity, this failure renders any training received less valuable to the applicant, I do not accept there was differential treatment of the applicant or that the course was itself discriminatory on the basis of race or colour.

7With respect to whether the applicant was expelled because she complained that the contents of the make up kit were discriminatory, I find that she was not.

8The documentary evidence of the respondents established they had concerns about the applicant’s negative attitude from the beginning of the course. The applicant’s own statements confirm she complained to the respondents about the quality of the program from the beginning and continued to do so despite their attempts to respond to her demands.

9I am satisfied that the applicant was expelled because of her behaviour throughout the program and that discrimination was not a factor in that decision.

10The Application is dismissed.