Alexandre Papouchine v. Staples Canada, 2013 HRTO 18

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alexandre Papouchine Applicant

-and-

Staples Canada Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: January 4, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 18 Indexed as: Papouchine v. Staples Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Alexandre Papouchine, Applicant Self-represented

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In the narrative of the Application, the applicant alleges that the respondent refused to sell him a computer, which was on sale, because it required some service to remove data from it. When he returned to the store the following morning, the computer was gone. He further alleges that his subsequent attempts to complain about this to head office were ignored.

2In the narrative, the applicant makes no attempt to link the treatment he received with the grounds of ancestry, place of origin or ethnic origin. In answer to the request in the Form 1-C to explain why he believed he had been discriminated against on the basis of these grounds, the applicant answered, “Such situation could not happened with member of Royal family.”

3On December 10, 2012, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) on the basis that the allegations in the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (power to decide) on the following basis:

a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent(s).

4The applicant filed written submissions in response to the NOID on December 23, 2012, in which he argues that declining to sell “available goods” can be discrimination on the basis of “services, goods and facilities.” The issue, however, is not whether the respondent was offering a service, but whether the applicant is alleging that the denial of that service was on the basis of one of the enumerated grounds in the Code.

5The applicant speculates his treatment occurred because of his (unidentified) ancestry or background, but makes no connection between the enumerated grounds and the respondent’s alleged refusal to sell him goods and disregard his subsequent complaints. His comment that he might have been treated differently if he had been a member of the royal family highlights the real nature of the applicant’s case – that he feels he received substandard, as opposed to discriminatory, service at the hands of the respondent.

6The Tribunal does not adjudicate general claims of unfairness or poor customer service. There must be a nexus between the allegation of unfairness/poor service and a ground under the Code. In the absence of such a nexus, no violation of the Code can be found.

7Given that the applicant has failed to establish that the alleged conduct at issue was related to a ground under the Code, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.