Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
BETWEEN:
François Zamor Applicant
-and-
3016776 Canada Inc. o/a CILFO and Bill Kwong Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: August 3, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1630 Indexed as: Zamor v. 3016776 Canada
APPEARANCES
François Zamor, Applicant ) Joseph-Alphonse André, Counsel
3016776 Canada Inc. and Bill Kwong, Respondents ) No one appearing
1This Application, filed under s. 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), alleges discrimination on the basis of colour, ethnic origin, and race in the context of employment. The Application also alleges reprisal or threat of reprisal.
2For the reasons set out below, I find that the respondents breached the Code and discriminated against the applicant on the basis of his colour, race and ethnic origin. However, on the evidence before me, there is no basis to conclude that the respondents reprised against the applicant or made threats of reprisal.
THE RESPONDENTS’ FAILURE TO ATTEND THE HEARING
3The matter was scheduled for hearing on July 19, 2010. The applicant and his counsel attended on the prescribed date and time, but the respondents failed to appear.
4I am satisfied that the respondents had notice of the hearing. There was repeated communication from the Tribunal to the parties confirming the July 19, 2010 hearing date, notably:
a. On April 13, 2010, the Tribunal provided the parties with a Confirmation of the Hearing date of July 19, 2010;
b. On June 30, 2010, the respondents filed documents with the Tribunal and provided a copy to the applicant seeking an adjournment of the hearing date;
c. On July 8, 2010, the Tribunal denied the respondents’ request for adjournment;
d. On July 8, 2010, the respondents communicated with the Tribunal and the applicant, indicating that they understood that the hearing would be rescheduled;
e. The Tribunal wrote to the parties to advise that the hearing would not be rescheduled and that it would proceed on July 19, 2010.
f. On July 13, 2010, the respondents asked the Tribunal to reconsider its decision to deny the request for adjournment.
g. The Tribunal wrote to the parties on July 16,2010 stating that no adjournment would be granted and that the hearing would proceed as scheduled on July 19, 2010. This was confirmed by the Tribunal’s Interim Decision 2010 HRTO 1545 issued July 16, 2010.
5The Tribunal’s general practice where a party does not attend the hearing is to wait 30 minutes after the hearing’s scheduled start time before proceeding in the absence of the party. In my view, there was no reason to deviate from this process in the circumstances. The hearing began at 10:30 on July 19, 2010 and was conducted in the absence of the respondents.
OVERVIEW
6The applicant was employed by the Centre d’immersion en langue française d’Ottawa (“CILFO”), a language school that principally teaches French as a second language. The applicant worked for CILFO from 2001 to 2003 (“first period of employment”) and again from approximately November 2005 until March 2007 (“second period of employment”). Throughout both of his employment periods with CILFO, the applicant worked as a pedagogical consultant. In this role, he was responsible for some aspects of school administration and he also taught some classes.
7The allegations which give rise to this Application relate to the applicant’s second period of employment. He does not allege that he was discriminated against during his first period of employment with CILFO.
8At the material times, the applicant worked as one of two pedagogical consultants. His counterpart, the other pedagogical consultant, was a non-racialized woman of French Canadian origin.
9The applicant testified that the personal respondent purchased CILFO in approximately October of 2002. The applicant testified that he resigned from his position with