HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Muhammad Alvi, Mehboob Khan and Mohammad Bhatti
Applicants
-and-
Pathmanathan Sinnadurai
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume
Indexed as: Alvi v. Sinnadurai
APPEARANCES BY
Muhammad Alvi and Mohammad Bhatti, ) Self-represented Applicants )
Pathmanathan Sinnadurai, ) Self-represented Respondent )
1This Decision arises from three Applications filed by Muhammad Alvi, Mehboob Khan and Mohammad Bhatti (“applicants”) against Panthmanathan Sinnadurai (“respondent”). The applicants allege discrimination on the basis of race, place of origin and ethnic origin, in respect of employment, pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The applications arise out of the same events and as a result, I have determined pursuant to Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure that they should be joined and heard together. A hearing was held on March 8, 2011. One of the applicants, Mr. Khan, was unable to attend the hearing because of illness. Mr. Khan did not advise the Tribunal that he would not be in attendance nor did the applicants request an adjournment on his behalf.
3A certified translator provided the applicants with translation between Urdu and English throughout the hearing.
4The parties filed Applications, Responses and Replies in advance of the hearing. The Tribunal heard testimony from Mr. Bhatti, Mr. Alvi and Mr. Sinnadurai.
5The respondent is alleged to have made derogatory comments about people of Pakistani origin at a public meeting on the taxi industry held by the Town of Oakville. The applicants allege that the respondent is a co-worker and therefore section 5 of the Code, which prohibits discrimination with respect to employment, is engaged by their allegations.
6The basic facts of this case are not in dispute. The parties are all taxi drivers. They make arrangements to work various shifts directly with the owners of the taxis and use the same dispatch services provided by Oakville United. The respondent drives an accessible van for the same dispatch company.
7The parties were invited by the Town of Oakville, along with other members of the taxi industry, to participate in a public meeting about the issuance of new taxi licences. The meeting was held on February 18, 2009. The applicants allege that the meeting was attended by 25 or 30 people including members of the public and city councillors. The respondent recalls a larger group of approximately 80 to 100 people.
8The parties agreed that those who attended the meeting had different points of view about how many taxi licences should be issued and who should receive them. Participants in the meeting were given an opportunity to speak. The respondent took the opportunity to address the members of the public and the councillors who were in attendance and express his views on the issuance of new taxi licences.
9The respondent is alleged to have made derogatory statements about people of Pakistani origin when he addressed the members of the taxi community and members of the public in attendance at the meeting. The applicants testified that they were concerned about comments that appeared to link “911” with people of Pakistani origin being forced out of the United States by former President Bush and immigrating to Canada to find work in the taxi industry.
10The respondent’s position is that he was speaking at a public meeting and attempting to express his concerns about the issuance of new taxi licences. He denies that his comments were discriminatory and alleges that the applicants have misinterpreted his comments and have taken them out of context.
11The Tribunal admitted, on consent of the parties, a recording of the public meeting. The applicants obtained the recording from the Town of Oakville and the applicants confirmed that they had not made any amendments, deletions or alterations to the recording. The respondent received a copy of the recording in advance and consented to having it played during the hearing. All of the parties were aware at the time that the public meeting would be recorded by the Town of Oakville.
12The recording was played during the hearing. The respondent acknowledged that his presentation was somewhat rambling and incoherent, however, he did agree that he made the following comments:
“September 11 happened…you don’t know what happened – all this from Mr. George Bush – I don’t know what community you throw them out or what – I don’t know what happened there – a lot of people came to Canada as a refugee - and there was a Pakistani community they came to Canada – I tell you today – you can check on your record after 2001 how many drivers started coming to work – at that time it was very easy to get a job…not a job, very easy to get a driver’s licence…”
13Before and after this statement the respondent commented on the fact that before 2001 drivers were essentially “courted” by taxi owners and that the influx of new drivers to the industry has made it more difficult to get well paying work.
14I can understand why the applicants reacted to the respondent’s comments. He does appear to be suggesting that the immigration of people of Pakistani origin to Canada has had a negative impact on the taxi industry. I also believe that the respondent was sincere in his testimony that he did not mean to demean anyone of Pakistani origin. Given my finding, which is set out below, that these comments were not made “in respect of employment”, I do not find it necessary to determine whether or not the comments constitute a breach of the Code.
15The first issue raised by these applications is whether the facts as they are alleged, can be said to arise “in respect of employment” as provided for in section 5 of the Code. I raised this concern with the parties and gave them an opportunity to address this issue during the hearing.
16Section 5 (1) of the Code reads as follows:
Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.
17Section 5 is broad enough to capture a variety of different employment relationships. It also applies to a variety of employment-related experiences, some of which occur at the work site and, in some cases, off-site for training and social events. It can also capture employment situations, such as this, where the individuals are not co-workers in the traditional sense, but could be sharing certain resources or working in close proximity with one another. Section 5 can also capture a variety of forms of public speech, which take place in the context of the employment relationship.
18Both applicants testified that they were humiliated by the fact that the comments were made in the presence of other members of the taxi industry including the owner of the dispatch service shared by the parties. In addition, the subject-matter of the meeting relates to the work that the applicants and the respondent do from the same facility. The applicants testified that the respondent’s conduct interfered with their ability to work for a period of time.
19However, in this case, the comments in question were made at a public meeting held by the Town of Oakville. The parties received a letter from the Town of Oakville inviting them to participate in the meeting. Members of the public were also welcome to attend. The subject of the meeting related to the regulatory relationship between the Town of Oakville, which issues the taxi licences, and interested members of the taxi community. There was no evidence that the public consultation was a work-related event over which the company providing dispatch services to the parties had any control. The respondent attended at the meeting on his own time and in his personal capacity to express his own views as someone who works in the taxi industry. Considering all of those circumstances, I conclude that the facts of this case do not fall within the definition of the phrase “in respect of employment”. Section 5 of the Code was not, in my view, designed to regulate the kind of public speech which the respondent was engaged in.
20For all of those reasons, the application is dismissed.
21Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of July, 2011.
”Signed by”
Leslie Reaume
Vice-chair