HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Alexandre Papouchine
Applicant
-and-
Audi Canada
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Truemner
Indexed as: Papouchine v. Audi Canada
APPEARANCES
Alexandre Papouchine, Applicant
Self-represented
Audi Canada, Respondent
Arthur Bode, Counsel
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 services because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and sex.
2The applicant had a dispute with an Audi dealership which had repaired his car but, the applicant alleges, caused further disrepair as a result. He contacted the respondent, which is a separate corporation from the dealership, to obtain help in resolving the dispute with the dealership, and to obtain documents with technical information about car parts that he wanted to use to prove his claim at Small Claims Court against the dealership. The applicant believes that the respondent’s role is to provide such information, and to help Audi customers resolve such disputes because of its policy or practice to intervene when there exists a warranty on parts and labour. He admits that the warranty on his car expired years before he contacted the respondent. Given his belief with respect to his right to seek support from the respondent in the context of a dispute with the dealership in the context of any parts and labour warranty, the applicant argues that discrimination is the only possible explanation for the respondent’s refusal of services.
3The applicant did not buy the car from the respondent or obtain repair services through it. The only relevant interaction the applicant has had with the respondent appears to be related to the applicant’s attempts to obtain information and conflict resolution support for his claims against the dealership. The applicant states that he lost his claim against the dealership at Small Claims Court because the Court found that the applicant was unable to prove the disputed disrepair was the fault of the dealership.
4By Case Assessment Direction dated May 29, 2012, the Tribunal, on its own initiative, directed that the matter be scheduled for a summary hearing pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The applicant was directed to make argument and point to evidence which would support a connection between the alleged actions of the respondent and the prohibited grounds alleged in the Application. The summary hearing was heard by way of teleconference on September 14, 2012.
ANALYSIS
The Summary Hearing
5The summary hearing process is described in Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The issue in a summary hearing is whether an application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the application or part of the application will succeed.
6In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, at paras. 8-10, the Tribunal made the following observations on the type of inquiry that may be involved in a summary hearing:
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.
In considering what evidence is reasonably available to the applicant, the Tribunal must be attentive to the fact that in some cases of alleged discrimination, information about the reasons for the actions taken by a respondent are within the sole knowledge of the respondent. Evidence about the reasons for actions taken by a respondent may sometimes come through the disclosure process and through cross-examination of the people involved. The Tribunal must consider whether there is a reasonable prospect that such evidence may lead to a finding of discrimination. However, when there is no reasonable prospect that any such evidence could allow the applicant to prove his or her case on a balance of probabilities, the application must be dismissed following the summary hearing.
7As the Tribunal noted in Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, [2011 HRTO 1389](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2011/1389
