Aniol v. Lafontaine Resort Park, 2010 HRTO 276

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Artur Aniol

Applicant

-and-

Lafontaine Resort Park Inc. and Castle Resort Parks Inc.

Respondents

decision

Adjudicator: Lorne Slotnick

Date: February 8, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 276

Indexed as: Aniol v. Lafontaine Resort Park

APPEARANCES

Artur Aniol, Applicant ) On his own behalf

Lafontaine Resort Park Inc. and ) Marvin Litvack, representative

Castle Resort Parks Inc., Respondents )

1This is an Application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), in which the applicant alleges his ethnic origin was a factor when he and his family were evicted from a campground in 2007.

2The applicant, Artur Aniol, lives in Mississauga. He was born in Poland and came to Canada in 1982 at age 23. The respondent Lafontaine Resort Park Inc. (“Lafontaine”) is a campground near Penetanguishene, Ontario. Roughly half of its 300 spaces are rented on a seasonal basis by campers who leave their trailers there year-round. The applicant, along with his wife and three children, were seasonal campers at Lafontaine for approximately nine years before his eviction. The respondent Castle Resort Parks Inc. (“Castle Resort”) operates a chain of campgrounds, and bought Lafontaine from its long-time owners about two months before the applicant’s eviction. The complaint underlying this matter was filed with the Commission on October 19, 2007, and the Tribunal hearing took place on November 13, 2009 and January 19, 2010.

3The evidence indicated that a substantial portion of the seasonal campers at Lafontaine were of Polish origin – estimates were from 20 to 30 per cent. The applicant testified that he believed the Polish campers were treated differently from others by management at the camp, and were typecast as troublemakers who did not follow the rules. The applicant says he was perceived as a leader of the Polish campers and was therefore targeted, prompting his eviction in July, 2007. Much of the applicant’s evidence focused on the campground’s manager, Michel (Mike) Dupuis, whom the applicant portrayed as harbouring a hatred of Polish people. Mr. Dupuis and the respondents say they welcome campers of all backgrounds and that the applicant’s eviction was sparked by a serious confrontation between him and a security guard in the middle of the night, the culminating incident in a long history of the applicant and his family flouting rules of the campground that apply equally to everyone.

4Both the applicant and the respondents cited a number of incidents at the campground in the two or three years leading up to the eviction that they say are relevant to their view of the situation.

5One incident was recounted by Josephine Lanigan, the owner of a nearby diving business who is a friend of the applicant and who is of Polish origin. Ms. Lanigan, whose company provided programs at the campground with the assistance of the applicant’s two sons, said that in the summer of 2006, they had a problem with an 11-year-old boy in the pool who appeared to be drowning. She said they pulled him from the pool and put him in the hot tub to warm him up. The hot tub is restricted to people 18 and over, and Ms. Lanigan said Mr. Dupuis and one of the former campground owners, Cecile Moreau, came over, yelling that the boy should not be in the hot tub. Ms. Lanigan quoted Ms. Moreau as saying, “You Pollacks don’t abide by the rules.” Ms. Lanigan said that was the end of her involvement with the park.

6Another incident was recounted by one of Mr. Aniol’s two teenaged sons, Maciej Aniol. About two weeks before the eviction, he said, he and some friends returned to the park after watching a soccer game in which Poland had defeated Brazil. He acknowledged they were waving Polish flags, honking their horn, and generally making a lot of noise. He said the campground’s assistant manager, Rick Rawluck, threatened the teenagers, swore at them, and warned them to be quiet. While there were no derogatory remarks made, Maciej Aniol said he interpreted the incident as an aspect of Mr. Dupuis’s dislike of Polish culture. It appears, however, that Mr. Dupuis was not directly involved in this incident.

7Maciej Aniol was also involved in another incident two summers before the eviction when he and a teenaged girl went missing for a short time. The girl’s mother was apparently very concerned and went to Mr. Dupuis, who advised her to call police, which she did. Maciej Aniol testified that he still doesn’t understand why the police were involved when it was just “teenagers being teenagers.” He said he felt Polish teenagers would get in trouble for things that would have been overlooked for others. Documentation of this incident indicates that the teenagers were found at 3 a.m. and that the applicant paid a $125 fine levied by the park for extra security costs and was warned that his son would not be allowed into the park if there was a further incident.

8One of Maciej Aniol’s friends, Hubert Filipkowski, testified about a weekend visit he paid to the Aniols’ campsite in May, 2007. He said he and his friends were told to get out of the hot tub because they were under 18, and then told by Mr. Rawluck, the assistant manager, to stop jumping in the pool. He said Mr. Rawluck was angry and called them “fucking Polish punks”, challenging them to a fight. Mr. Filipkowski said he then went to Mr. Dupuis to complain but Mr. Dupuis simply told him to get off the property and threatened to call the police.

9The applicant’s other son, Michal Aniol, testified that he felt Polish campers, especially young people, were treated differently by the campground’s management. He cited one incident from several years before the eviction in which he said a non-Polish camper who had been drinking crashed a dirt bike into a tree, and he questioned why police were not called. He also said Mr. Dupuis accused him for breaking a piece of pool equipment without any evidence.

10Michal Aniol was also involved in the incident that the respondents say precipitated the eviction. Just after midnight on July 23, 2007, he and two friends returned to the campground by car. Campground rules specify that the gate is closed from midnight to 8 a.m. and campers returning during those hours must park in the visitors’ lot and walk to their sites, rather than driving through the campground to their site as they would normally. Michal Aniol acknowledged that the rule is strictly applied, but also said it was only a minute or two after midnight, and he felt the security guard was going to let him drive to his site until she realized who he was. He parked in the visitors’ lot, then walked to the site and told his father what had happened. At some point during the night, the applicant went to see the security guard in the arcade area of the park to complain about the treatment of his son.

11The security guard, Laura Lacoste, no longer works for the respondents and did not testify. However, she sent a handwritten note to Mr. Dupuis the next morning that is addressed to the applicant at 3:10 a.m. and which says:

I do not and will not put up with being threatened or bullied by any persons, your rudeness, bullying attitude, foul mouth, eye shiftiness ignorance will not be tolerated. All rules will be followed by every person within the resort….My flexibility will only be met in emergency situations, or if my boss has stated to me otherwise. To threaten me, verbally attack, bullying aggressiveness that you did in the arcade is totally unacceptable.

12Mr. Dupuis testified that he was very concerned when he saw this note, and talked immediately to Ms. Lacoste, who he described as very upset by the incident, and who he said had never made this type of complaint against a camper. His notes of the conversation with Ms. Lacoste say:

Laura was in arcade. Arthur stormed in and was yelling and very verbally abusive and [she] was forced to back up cause Arthur was up close to face.

13That afternoon, Mr. Dupuis sent an e-mail message to Paul Colvin, president of Castle Resort, which had just purchased the campground two months prior. The message reads as follows:

Good afternoon Paul. We have encountered a serious problem with one of our seasonal camper. Site #Y. Names: Arthur Aniol, Beata Aniol, Macie Aniol, Michal Aniol, Anna Aniol. This family has been here for quite a few years and in the past they have been a challenge with their boys and the parents also. I have a detailed list of numerous past incidents involving this family. Last nite was the breaking point. This family had friends park on Lafontaine Road and cut across the field to go to their site without registering in the office and to avoid paying the $4.00 visitor pass. This has been going on for a long long time. They also park their extra vehicles and some of their friends’ vehicle on our other seasonal sites without permission and without paying our visitor’s fee.

Last nite Mr. Aniol got very abusive with our security staff and made threats to them they will be without a job cause they have no flexibility and just cause to stop them. This gentleman has been pushing for quite some time and feels that he owns the park and can do what he pleases and what his family wants whenever they want.

Paul, I would like to deal with this immediately.

14Mr. Colvin’s evidence was that his company would normally give campers a warning if it was contemplating an eviction, but that Mr. Dupuis had made clear that there had been a long history of the applicant and his family breaking rules. Mr. Colvin said he discussed the matter with Mr. Dupuis and felt he should back up his manager who had outlined the history, including the threatening behaviour toward a security guard. He gave Mr. Dupuis the go-ahead to evict the applicant, and two days later, the applicant was issued a notice under the Trespass to Property Act and given a week to remove his trailer and other property from the campground. Asked on cross-examination whether he ought to have taken the time to listen to the applicant’s side of the story before taking action. Mr. Colvin said he simply doesn’t have the time and trusted the assessment of his manager, even though he barely knew Mr. Dupuis at the time. Mr. Colvin said the applicant’s ethnic origin played no role in the discussion with Mr. Dupuis and no role in the eviction.

15Mr. Dupuis, who has worked at the campground since 2004, said he could recall only one other eviction, a family of French-Canadian origin whose grandson had a history of breaking rules.

16In the case of the applicant, Mr. Dupuis said, the culminating incident was the confrontation with the security guard. However, he said, two months earlier he had had a complaint from the park’s neighbours when visitors to the applicant’s site avoided the visitor parking fee by parking outside the campground. There had also been numerous occasions, he said, when visitors to the applicant’s site were parked at other people’s sites. As well, he said, there had been problems with the applicant’s two sons, who had on various occasions been away from their campsite after the park’s midnight curfew for teenagers. The summer before, there had been an incident where the mother of a girl had come to him complaining that the applicant’s son was harassing her daughter and another two girls. Mr. Dupuis said the applicant began questioning the girls despite being asked to leave them alone. The mother then asked for police to be called, and Mr. Dupuis said he dialed the police and gave the phone to the mother to make her complaint. Many of these incidents are shown in handwritten notes in the security log book, excerpts of which was produced in evidence.

17Mr. Dupuis said he believes there are more Polish campers at Lafontaine now than when the applicant was evicted. In cross-examination, he agreed that five Polish families named by the applicant had left since 2007, but said this is not surprising since there is a turnover of 10-12 percent annually in seasonal campers, and that approximately 15 other non-Polish campers had left in that time. Each of the Polish campers who left had their own reasons, he said, and none raised any issues of discrimination. He disagreed with a suggestion that Polish campers have left because they felt uncomfortable at the park, and said complaints by Polish campers are dealt with the same as any others. Mr. Dupuis acknowledged that he had screamed and yelled at some of the Polish campers – including one who had operated a dirt bike at the park and another who had built an unapproved shed at his site – but said he had also yelled at other non-Polish campers on other occasions. In most cases, the arguments ended with a handshake, he said. He also disagreed with a suggestion that some campers are allowed to drive into the park regularly after midnight. Mr. Dupuis also rejected a suggestion that the applicant’s site had been “under surveillance,” saying that security staff walk around the park at night but were not instructed to pay any extra attention to the applicant’s family.

18The applicant said he had a conversation with Mr. Rawluck shortly before his eviction, expressing the dissatisfaction of many of the Polish campers with their treatment at the park. He said Mr. Rawluck asked him whether he was intending to organize a “Polish committee.” The respondents say this was an idea that was proposed by one of the Polish campers and was not unwelcome to the management. The applicant interprets this as a discriminatory comment, and suggests that the idea came from Mr. Dupuis, which Mr. Dupuis denies.

DECISION

19The applicant and his family are clearly very upset at the events of July, 2007 – not only the fact of their eviction from the park where they had vacationed for nine years and built many friendships, but also the way in which the eviction occurred, without any kind of final warning or without any discussion between the applicant and the park’s management. In addition, a dispute has continued between the parties over the applicant’s trailer, which has not been removed from the park but has been dismantled and taken away from the campsite.

20I have little doubt from the evidence that the respondents could have handled the situation in a way that might have prevented an escalation of the dispute and the eventual hearing of this case. Mr. Colvin and Mr. Dupuis acknowledged as much several months after the eviction in an e-mail exchange about removing the applicant’s property.

21However, the issue for this Tribunal is not whether the situation ought to have been handled differently, or whether the respondents had any right to dismantle his trailer, but whether the applicant’s ethnic origin was a factor in his treatment by the respondents. For the reasons below, I find that the applicant has not established that his ethnic origin was a factor in his eviction or in the treatment of him and his family prior to the eviction.

22First, I do not accept the applicant’s contention that Polish campers were treated differently from others or that the rules were applied more strictly to Polish campers at Lafontaine. The applicant’s evidence in this regard is simply too vague to draw any firm conclusions, consisting mainly of bald assertions that non-Polish campers were given more leeway. For example, the applicant stated that other campers were allowed to enter the park in their vehicles after midnight, but there is no real evidence of this and, in fact, one of the applicant’s sons acknowledged in his evidence that the rule was a strict one. In all the incidents cited by the applicant as discriminatory, including the attendance of police where his sons were involved, there was at least some basis for the actions of the campground management. For example, I do not find it surprising that police were called when a distraught mother became concerned that her daughter was missing with the applicant’s son. With respect to rules surrounding use of the pool and hot tub, parking, access by visitors, gate closings and curfews, it is uncontested that these rules were widely known among the campers, posted at the park and agreed to by the campers annually. The applicant does not suggest he was unaware of any of these rules, and the evidence does not reveal any incident in which the management of the park was attempting to go beyond the rules already in force.

23Second, while some of the Polish campers had concerns about the campground’s management and may even have been dissatisfied enough to leave, this in itself is not enough to substantiate differential treatment on the basis of ethnic origin. I accept Mr. Dupuis’s evidence that there is a turnover in campers each year and that non-Polish as well as Polish campers have left. The applicant produced about 15 letters from Polish-Canadian friends and relatives that made sweeping assertions of discriminatory conduct, particularly against Mr. Dupuis. I place no weight at all on these letters. None of the signatories appeared at the hearing. The applicant testified that the letters were written in Polish and then translated by him; however, a review of the structure and phrasing of the letters suggests strongly that the applicant had a far greater involvement than mere translation. For example, at least three of the letters contain the exact sentence, “During our stay we have observed a very ignorant behaviour of the owners or staff in their dealings with us despite the fact we did abide by the orders.” Some letters suggest that Mr. Dupuis undergo a psychiatric assessment and anger management training, a theme the applicant himself pursues in his letters to various authorities about his eviction.

24Third, I find it significant that a petition protesting against the applicant’s eviction signed by 25 Polish campers makes no mention at all of discrimination. The petition is addressed to Mr. Dupuis, who is praised for his “incessant hard work.” The signatories say they are saddened and confused by the applicant’s eviction and ask for a reconsideration, saying, “notwithstanding the issues the management may have with the Aniols’ two sons, it seems both Beata (the applicant’s wife) and Anna Aniol (the applicant’s daughter) suffer with them.” In my view, if most of the Polish campers felt there was differential treatment, as the applicant has asserted they did, one would have expected this petition to at least make some mention of it, even if in passing.

25Fourth, consistent with the above, the applicant’s first correspondence about the matter after the eviction – to the respondents in a letter through counsel and to the Human Rights Commission in a lengthy letter – makes no mention of discrimination. The letter to the Commission runs to eight pages single-spaced and focuses on what he labels the arrogance and ignorance of the campground management, but contains no reference to discrimination on the ground of ethnic origin. It appears that only after he was advised by the Commission that he had not raised any Code-related grounds for his complaint did the applicant first raise allegations of discrimination.

26Fifth, while there is credible evidence of derogatory remarks by one of the former owners, Ms. Moreau, and by the assistant manager, Mr. Rawluck, I find that these statements had no connection to the applicant’s eviction or his treatment generally by these respondents. These remarks are indefensible, but on the applicant’s own evidence, he had no issues with Ms. Moreau, one of the former owners of the park who quite obviously had no role in the eviction. The applicant’s theory is that Ms. Moreau trained Mr. Dupuis to label Polish campers as difficult and to persecute them, even though the applicant acknowledges he has never heard Mr. Dupuis utter any derogatory remarks about Poles. I do not accept this version of events. Mr. Dupuis can be criticized for his manner of dealing with people, but there is no basis to believe that he was told to target Polish campers in general or the applicant’s family in particular. In fact, when asked how he knew Mr. Dupuis had been trained to target Poles, the applicant’s only response was that Mr. Dupuis was present when Ms. Moreau used the term “Pollack.” With regard to Mr. Rawluck, again there appears to be no connection between his remarks and any differential treatment by these respondents. It appears from the evidence that neither Mr. Colvin nor Mr. Dupuis were even aware of the incident between Mr. Rawluck and the applicant’s sons until after this complaint was filed. I find that Mr. Rawluck’s remark about a Polish committee to be an understandable and innocent remark devoid of any discriminatory intent. Mr. Rawluck did not testify, but his wife, Brenda Bieleckie – who happens to be of Polish descent and who also worked at the campground in 2007 – did, saying she disagreed with any suggestion of discriminatory conduct and that there had been many complaints from other campers about the applicant’s sons.

27Sixth, I find that the confrontation between the applicant and the security guard on July 23, 2007, provided the respondents with at least some reason to consider evicting the applicant, given the long history of complaints. It is not the Tribunal’s role to decide whether the eviction was the correct course. However, whether there was a valid reason to take action is relevant to the question of whether there was discriminatory conduct. The applicant portrays his interaction with the security guard as simply a conversation, but the evidence points to a far more aggressive confrontation. In any event, I find that after he discussed the matter with the security guard, Mr. Dupuis had some basis for being concerned enough to take the action that he did.

28In summary, while the applicant’s distress over the eviction and the way it was handled is understandable, I cannot conclude that his ethnic origin was a factor in his treatment by these respondents. Therefore, his right under the Code to equal treatment without discrimination because of ethnic origin has not been violated.

29For these reasons, the Application is dismissed.