HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
William Sayers Applicant
-and-
Willowdale Nissan and Cliff Lee Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: August 1, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1510 Indexed as: Sayers v. Willowdale Nissan
APPEARANCES
William Sayers, Applicant Self-represented
Willowdale Nissan and Cliff Lee, Respondents John Gionnas
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of race, colour and citizenship.
2On October 27, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (the “CAD”), which directed that a summary hearing be held in this matter.
3On June 21, 2012, a summary hearing was held via telephone conference during which all of the parties participated.
BACKGROUND
4On June 20, 2011, the applicant, Mr. Sayers, attended the premises of the corporate respondent, who operates a car dealership, because he was interested in purchasing a vehicle. He was approached by Mr. Lee, the individual respondent, who is a salesperson at Willowdale Nissan. During the hearing Mr. Sayers advised that he did not feel comfortable from the outset, because of Mr. Lee’s demeanour and because he commented on the applicant’s cowboy boots.
5Eventually, the applicant and Mr. Lee went into the office and discussed the price of a vehicle that the applicant was interested in purchasing. When Mr. Lee advised him that the quoted price did not include applicable taxes, the applicant said “I don’t pay taxes”. Mr. Lee responded with words to the effect of “are you a friend of Mr. Harper”. The applicant stated at least three times to Mr. Lee, in response to his inquiries, that he does not pay taxes but admits that he did not identify the reason why. The applicant told Mr. Lee that the reason that he did not pay taxes was not due to a political affiliation. The applicant then left the dealership and states in his Application that he felt degraded.
6During the hearing, Mr. Sayers stated that because of his status as an aboriginal person, he was exempt from paying taxes. The applicant stated that he did not present his tax exempt card to Mr. Lee because they were not at the transactional phase of their meeting. The applicant admits that he did not identify any reason for his statement that he does not pay taxes during this meeting.
7The applicant complained, the next day, to the corporate respondent and had at least one conversation during which he says that representatives of the corporate respondent apologized to him for any misunderstanding. It is during these conversations that he identified the reason why he did not pay taxes. The applicant says that when he asked the General Manager of the corporate respondent, Mr. Gionnas, for a fifty percent discount on the vehicle to resolve the matter, Mr. Gionnas hung up the telephone.
8Details about the nature of a summary hearing were set out as follows in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, at paras. 8 and 9:
In some cases, the issue at the summary hearing may be whether, assuming all the allegations in the application to be true, it has a reasonable prospect of success. In these cases, the focus will generally be on the legal analysis and whether what the applicant alleges may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation.
In other cases, the focus of the summary hearing may be on whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated. Often, such cases will deal with whether the applicant can show a link between an event and the grounds upon which he or she makes the claim. The issue will be whether there is a reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to him or her can show a link between the event and the alleged prohibited ground.
9Having considered the submissions of the parties, I find that this Application has no reasonable prospect of success for the reasons that follow.
10The applicant did not identify at the meeting that the reason that he did not have to pay taxes was related to his aboriginal status despite the fact that the personal respondent attempted to clarify this issue. The matter could have been easily avoided by the applicant if he explained the nature of his tax exempt status at this meeting. Indeed, the next day when he did identify the nature of his tax exempt status there was no issue that the respondents would not honour it. The respondents must charge taxes on all vehicles sold in accordance with the law. In order to be exempt from paying this tax, the applicant had an obligation to clearly explain the nature of his tax exemption at the meeting. He failed to do so.
11I find that the applicant therefore has no reasonable prospect of establishing that the respondents’ conduct infringed his rights under the Code.
12The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of August, 2012.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair