Gershowitz v. Ahmadi, 2013 HRTO 265

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Joseph Gershowitz Applicant

-and-

Yama Ahmadi and Bert O’Mara Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith Date: February 15, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 265 Indexed as: Gershowitz v. Ahmadi

APPEARANCES

Joseph Gershowitz, Applicant Self-represented

Yama Ahmadi and Bert O’Mara, Respondents Neil Searles, Counsel

BACKGROUND

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 on the basis of ethnic origin and place of origin. The applicant also alleges Code-related reprisal. Essentially, the applicant alleges that in October, 2010, his employment as a security guard was terminated by the respondents because he is Jewish and of Israeli background. He also alleges that he was harassed because of his ethnic background and place of origin by one of the respondents. The applicant names as respondents Yama Ahmadi the operations manager of 1628494 Ontario Inc. operating as Mosaic Investigations and Security (“Mosaic”), and Bert O’Mara, the President of 1628494 Ontario Inc.

2In their Response filed August 16, 2011, the respondents say that the applicant was not assigned work after October 2010 due solely to his own misconduct resulting in no work being available to him. They deny harassing the applicant or in any way discriminating against him because he is Jewish and of Israeli background.

3The matter was heard on its merits before me on June 6 and October 23, 2012.

PRELIMINARY MATTER

4Between the first and second day of hearing, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings requesting that 1628494 Ontario Inc. be added as a respondent. Given that, for the reasons that follow, the Application is dismissed and I find that it is unnecessary to deal with the Request.

THE EVIDENCE

Chronology of Events

5All parties agreed that the following timeline, provided by the respondents as Exhibit 3, properly reflects the chronology of events with respect to the applicant’s employment with Mosaic:

• January 14, 2010: The applicant applies for employment with Mosaic;
• February 13, 2010: The applicant began working at Chapters/Indigo Books and Music (“Indigo”) as a Mosaic security guard;
• March 14, 2010: The applicant continued to work at Indigo, but also was assigned shifts at the Arcadian Court banquet hall in the downtown Toronto Hudson Bay Company store (“Arcadian Court”);
• April 6, 2010: The applicant worked his last shift at Indigo;
• May 17, 2010: The applicant began working as a Mosaic security guard at The House of Lancaster;
• May 24, 2010: The applicant worked his last shift at House of Lancaster;
• September 5, 2010: The applicant worked his last shift at Arcadian and was asked to leave the shift early by Hudson Bay Company officials;
• September 11, 2010: The applicant began working as a Mosaic security guard at Toronto construction site (the “construction site”);
• September 26, 2010: The applicant worked his last shift at the construction site;
• October 2, 2010: The applicant was assigned by the respondents to work one shift for Star Security during the Nuit Blanche event;

Applicant’s Testimony

6The applicant testified that he immigrated from Israel in 2009. He worked for Mosaic from January to November 2010.

7The applicant recounted that he had difficulty with his supervisor the respondent Ahmadi. The applicant stated that he believed that in April and May 2010, Mr. Ahmadi intentionally delayed providing him with a pay cheque. The applicant testified that when he complained to Mr. Ahmadi, he responded that, “it’s just money, you people are greedy”.

8The applicant asserted that when he complained that he was not properly paid for overtime work Mr. Ahmadi stated to the applicant, “you came from Jerusalem and want money all the time”.

9The applicant testified that in September 2010 Mr. Ahmadi told him, “you are a greedy Jewish person”.

10The applicant recounted that Mosaic charged him a deposit for the Mosaic Security uniform when he began employment. When he attempted to return the uniform and have the deposit refunded Mr. Ahmadi refused to accept the uniform and stated, “you are from Jerusalem, I am smart and you are still stupid”.

11The applicant testified that when he approached Mr. O’Mara regarding his unsuccessful attempt to return the uniform, O’Mara stated, “we can’t take back a stinky, dirty uniform”.

12The applicant produced a four page document which he testified was a transcript, produced by the applicant, of an audio recording made in December 2010 of a conversation between himself and Mr. Ahmadi. The applicant had the transcript entered into evidence as Exhibit 1.

13The applicant was questioned with regard to the accuracy of the transcript. After a portion of the audio recording was played, the applicant admitted that the sound quality of the tape was so poor as to be virtually unintelligible. The applicant also admitted that he stopped recording before the end of the conversation. The audio recording was not entered into evidence.

14The conversation concerned a dispute over the amount that the applicant was owed by Mosaic for return of his uniform. The applicant took the position that he was owed $59, while Mr. Ahmadi maintained that the appropriate refund amount was $58. The transcript contains the following statement by Mr. Ahmadi:

You people coming from Jerusalem, you, oh, now, But, You, you think that’s OK. All people coming from that place are counting money? No, come on, It’s a dollar. (Pg 3 line 102)

15In cross examination the applicant agreed that Mr. O’Mara had been the guarantor on the applicant’s security guard licence application and was fully aware of the applicant’s place of origin and ethnic background at the time he was hired by Mosaic.

16The applicant admitted that he had no evidence that the reasons his assignments at Indigo, Arcadian Court, and The House of Lancaster were terminated were in any way connected to his ethnic or national origin.

17The applicant was asked why he never complained to Mr. O’Mara at the time Mr. Ahmadi made the alleged derogatory remarks regarding his ethnicity and origin in the Spring and again in September 2010. The applicant responded that he had complained to Mr. O’Mara some time during the summer of 2010, but that nothing was done. However, the applicant admitted that there was no mention of this conversation with Mr. O’Mara in the Application.

Nick Dakois’ Testimony

18Nick Dakois testified on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Dakois identified himself as the general manager of The House of Lancaster.

19Mr. Dakois stated that The House of Lancaster had previously employed the applicant as a cashier but in May of 2010 had Mosaic assign him to duties as a security guard. He testified that the management at The House of Lancaster was not happy with the applicant’s performance as a guard, and asked Mosaic to discontinue the assignment.

20The applicant did not cross examine Mr. Dakois.

Vincent Lee’s Testimony

21Vincent Lee testified on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Lee identified himself as the banquet manager for Arcadian Court.

22Mr. Lee related that on August 1, 2010, the applicant was working in the lobby of the Arcadian Court during an event. An argument ensued between the applicant and a Hudson Bay Company security guard and as a result, the applicant was told to leave the premises. Subsequently a decision was made by Hudson Bay Company management to advise Mosaic that they did not wish the applicant to be assigned to Arcadian Court in the future.

23The applicant did not cross examine Mr. Lee.

Mohammed Rafee’s Testimony

24Mohammed Rafee testified on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Rafee identified himself as a former employee of Mosaic who was working with the applicant at Arcadian Court on August 1, 2010. He testified that he witnessed aloud verbal altercation between the applicant and a Hudson Bay Company security guard and saw the applicant being directed to leave the premises.

25In cross examination Mr. Rafee maintained that he witnessed the applicant shouting in a loud voice at the Hudson Bay Company security guard on the evening in question.

Respondent Yama Ahmadi’s Testimony

26Mr. Ahmadi stated that Mosaic has some 100 employees of various ethnic backgrounds.

27Mr. Ahmadi stated that he had assisted in the training of the applicant with regard to Mosaic’s policies and procedures.

28Mr. Ahmadi stated that on April 1, 2010, he received a complaint concerning the applicant from management at the Indigo location on Bayview Avenue in Toronto. On investigation Mr. Ahmadi determined that the applicant had failed to properly fill out an arrest report. On April 6, 2010, Indigo management advised Mosaic that they no longer wanted to have the applicant assigned to their stores. Mr. Ahmadi advised that he attempted to have Indigo reconsider the decision, but they refused.

29With regard to the applicant’s employment at the Arcadian Court, Mr. Ahmadi testified that there had been a complaint about the applicant’s performance in the Spring of 2010, but that he was able to, “smooth it over” with Hudson Bay Company management.

30Mr. Ahmadi explained that he and Mr. O’Mara met with Hudson Bay Company management after the August 1, 2010, incident, but that the store’s management was adamant with regard to the applicant not returning.

31With regard to the applicant’s assignment with Star Security on October 2, 2010, Mr. Ahmadi testified that Star Security management had been upset with the applicant for taking a half-hour washroom break without permission. Star Security told Mr. Ahmadi that when confronted, the applicant had simply disappeared.

32Mr. Ahmadi explained that the applicant was assigned to the construction site job on September 11, 2010 and it ended on September 26, 2010. He testified that after October, the applicant was not assigned to further work because Mosaic had no other new work and the applicant was not welcome at Indigo, Arcadian Court, House of Lancaster or Star Security.

33Mr. Ahmadi denied making any derogatory remarks about the applicant’s ethnicity or place of origin. He also testified that he had no knowledge that the applicant had complained about him to Mr. O’Mara during the summer of 2010.

34With regard to the transcript of the December 2010 conversation, Mr. Ahmadi admitted he made some reference to “Jerusalem”. However, he pointed out that line 102 of the Exhibit 3 transcript contains a question mark and then the word “no” after the phrase, “…All people coming from that place are counting money?”. In other words, he explained, that if the transcript was punctuated properly he was in fact making a rhetorical comment that, in effect, everyone from Jerusalem was not counting money. In cross examination Mr. Ahmadi again denied making any derogatory reference to the applicant’s place of origin, in particular Jerusalem.

35Questioned about having withheld the applicant’s pay cheques, Mr. Ahmadi advised that he had no responsibility for payroll, and was not in a position to control when pay cheques were issued.

Respondent Bert O’Mara’s Testimony

36Mr. O’Mara testified that he founded Mosaic in 2001 after retiring as a Detective with the Toronto Police Service.

37Mr. O’Mara advised that Mosaic employees come from a wide variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds. He testified that in fact he named the company “Mosaic” to reflect the ethnic and cultural diversity of the company’s employees and clients. He stated that he has never received a request from a client to assign, or not assign, a security guard based on the guard’s ethnicity or place of origin.

38With regard to the applicant’s assignment to Indigo, Mr. O’Mara explained that the applicant had failed to do the proper paperwork following the arrest of an alleged shoplifter and Indigo asked for him to be removed from the assignment. Mr. O’Mara testified that Indigo is a “tough client” and had asked Mosaic not to assign other guards, besides the applicant, for work performance related reasons. He stated that the applicant’s ethnicity or background had never been mentioned in any discussions with Indigo.

39Mr. O’Mara pointed to the fact that the applicant was not “fired” by Mosaic after losing his position at Indigo in April. The applicant remained an employee, was given further training and was subsequently reassigned.

40With regard to the applicant’s employment at the Arcadian Court, Mr. O’Mara stated that no mention was made of the applicant’s ethnicity or background when he and Mr. Ahmadi met with Hudson Bay Company management after the August 1, 2010, altercation involving the applicant.

41Similarly, Mr. O’Mara advised that Nick Bakois, the manager of The House of Lancaster, never mentioned anything about the applicant’s ethnicity or background. Mr. O’Mara noted that even though Mr. Bakois was dissatisfied with the applicant’s performance as a security guard, he continued to employ the applicant as a cashier.

42With regard to the applicant’s assignment with Star Security on October 2, 2010, Mr. O’Mara testified that Star Security management had been upset with the applicant for taking a half-hour washroom break without permission. Star Security told Mr. O’Mara that when confronted, the applicant left the site. Mr. O’Mara advised that as with the applicant’s other assignments, Star Security never mentioned the applicant’s ethnicity or place of origin.

43Mr. O’Mara testified that there had been no problems with the applicant’s last assignment at the construction site. However, Mosaic’s contract for security services ended on September 26, 2010. After October there was simply no other work for the applicant, given that he could not be assigned to Indigo, Arcadian Court or House of Lancaster.

44Mr. O’Mara advised that after October 2010, the applicant was not terminated. He remained on the roster of Mosaic’s employees. Mr. O’Mara testified that it was entirely the applicant’s decision to resign from Mosaic, return his uniform and request reimbursement for the uniform deposit.

45Mr. O’Mara recalled that he received a telephone call from the applicant in late October or early November 2010. During the telephone conversation the applicant complained about not getting a full refund for the uniform. Mr. O’Mara testified that he told the applicant it was company’s policy to not give a full refund if the garments had not been properly cleaned, as was the case with the applicant.

46Mr. O’Mara admitted that there had been problems with Mosaic’s payroll system which resulted in the applicant not receiving proper payment for overtime work. He stated that it was a company-wide problem and that the applicant was in no way discriminated against. He testified that the applicant had received full redress for the late overtime payments by way of resolution of a complaint the applicant made to the Employment Standards Branch of the Ontario Ministry of Labour. He noted that the ESA complaint did not allege discrimination, only that the employer had failed to pay proper overtime wages.

47In cross examination Mr. O’Mara denied receiving any telephone calls from the applicant other than the one in late October or early November 2010. Mr. O’Mara testified that, until receiving the Application, no complaints were made to him regarding Mr. Ahmadi making derogatory remarks based on the applicant’s ethnicity or place of origin.

SUBMISSIONS

The Applicant

48The applicant focused his argument on Mr. Ahmadi, stating that Mr. Ahmadi is a Muslim and has “nothing in common” with him. Furthermore, the applicant submitted that Mr. Ahmadi is originally from Afghanistan, which the applicant advised, is an “enemy country to Israel”.

49The applicant urged me to find that Mr. Ahmadi made the alleged derogatory statements and that he was generally badly treated by Ahmadi. The applicant submitted that I should “draw an inference” that the bad treatment was because of the applicant’s ethnicity and place of origin.

Respondent

50The respondent focused on the transcript as the only possible evidence to support the applicant’s claim of discrimination. The respondent urged me to accept Mr. Ahmadi’s explanation regarding the reference to Jerusalem.

THE LAW

The Code

51The relevant sections of the Code are as follows:

5(1) 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, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.

(2) Every person who is an employee has a right to freedom from harassment in the workplace by the employer or agent of the employer or by another employee because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.

8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.

9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part.

10. (1) …“harassment” means engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome;

52The applicant has the onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that a violation of the Code has occurred. A balance of probabilities means that it is more likely than not a violation has occurred. It is also well-established in human rights law that in order for a termination of employment to constitute a violation of the Code, discrimination need only be one of the reasons for the termination. It is not necessary that discrimination be the sole or even the predominant reason for the termination for the Code to be infringed. See, Wedley v. Northview Co-operative Homes Inc., 2008 HRTO 13 and Royal v. Optilinx Systems Inc., 2010 HRTO 2135.

Credibility

53One of the most often citied cases in relation to the factors and approach to assessing credibility is Faryna v. Chorny, 1951 CanLII 252 (BC CA), [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 (BCCA). At p. 356-357, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated:

…Opportunities for knowledge, powers of observation, judgment and memory, ability to describe clearly what he has seen and heard, as well as other factors, combine to produce what is called credibility.

The credibility of interested witnesses, particularly in cases of conflict of evidence cannot be gauged solely by the test of whether the personal demeanor of the particular witness carried conviction of the truth. The test must reasonably subject his story to an examination of its consistency with the probabilities that surround the currently existing conditions. In short, the real test of the truth of the story of the witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions (…) Again, a witness may testify to what he sincerely believes to be true, but he may be quite honestly mistaken.

54I also considered the factors identified by the Tribunal in Cugliari v. Clubine and Brunet, 2006 HRTO 7, and DeForest v. Brockton Farm Ltd. 2012 HRTO 1666: the motives of the witnesses, the relationship of the witnesses to the parties, the internal consistency of their evidence, and inconsistencies and contradictions in relation to other witnesses’ evidence.

ANALYSIS

55Taking the evidence as a whole, for the reasons that follow, I find that the applicant has failed to prove that it is more probable than not that his ethnicity or place of origin was a factor that contributed to the decision to terminate his employment. I also find that there is no evidence to substantiate the allegation of reprisal. Finally, in my view, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the applicant was harassed contrary to s.5(2) of the Code.

Loss of Employment

56The applicant’s argument that his loss of employment by Mosaic was due to the fact that he is Jewish and of Israeli background must fail. I find that, as the applicant admitted in testimony, there was absolutely no evidence presented that the applicant’s loss of employment was due to Code-related factors. Indeed, there was clear, un-refuted evidence that in terms of the applicant’s assignments at Indigo, Arcadian Court, The House of Lancaster and with Star Security that it was the applicant’s own misconduct which led to him not continuing with those companies. As far as the applicant’s assignment at the construction site, the applicant did not dispute that Mosaic’s contract to protect the property had simply come to an end.

57There was also no evidence presented by the applicant that the respondents had in any way discriminated against him with regard to not assigning him to further work after October 2, 2010. Lacking any evidence to the contrary, I accept the respondent’s explanation, given that the applicant could not return to Indigo, Arcadian Court, The House of Lancaster or Star Security, there was no other work available to offer the applicant. The applicant admits that he voluntarily resigned his employment with Mosaic in December 2010.

Reprisal

58The applicant failed to present any evidence which would engage s. 8 of the Code. I therefore dismiss that part of the allegation.

Bert O’Mara

59The applicant alleges three Code-related violations by Mr. O’Mara:

1. That Mr. O’Mara intentionally discriminated against the applicant by failing to provide the applicant with proper overtime pay because the applicant is Jewish and of Israeli background;
2. That in the summer of 2010, the applicant informed Mr. O’Mara of the derogatory comments being directed at the applicant by Mr.Ahmadi, and that Mr. O’Mara failed to take any action;
3. That Mr. O’Mara, along with Mr.Ahmadi, discriminated against the applicant because of the applicant’s ethnicity and place of origin with regard to the insistence that the applicant’s Mosaic uniform be freshly dry-cleaned before a full uniform deposit could be reimbursed.

60With regard to the applicant’s first allegation against Mr. O’Mara, I do not accept that Mosaic’s failure to provide the applicant with his proper overtime pay was in any way related to the applicant’s ethnicity or place of origin. Mr. O’Mara admitted in testimony that there was a failure on Mosaic’s part with regard to paying some employees, including the applicant, their proper overtime entitlement. This was due to a payroll system deficiency and had nothing to do with the personal characteristics of any employee. Given that the applicant provided no evidence to refute Mr. O’Mara’s explanation, I dismiss that applicant’s allegation with regard to the overtime pay.

61Having regard to the respective parties’ credibility, I also reject the applicant’s second allegation. I do not accept that, on the balance of probabilities, the applicant complained to Mr. O’Mara about Mr. Ahmadi in the summer of 2010. Based on the factors in DeForest, above, in terms of internal consistency, I note that Mr. O’Mara’s testimony was unequivocal with regard to the fact that, until receiving the Application, no complaints were made to him regarding Mr. Ahmadi making derogatory remarks based on the applicant’s ethnicity or place of origin. The applicant was also vague about the timing of the complaint, i.e. it was, “sometime during the summer” of 2010. There was no evidence that the applicant followed up with Mr. O’Mara after the alleged telephone conversation. Most significantly, there is absolutely no mention of the telephone conversation in the Application, Reply, or even in the applicant’s examination in chief. I also find that the applicant had a clear motive to bolster his case with an allegation of complaint to Mr. O’Mara. Mr. O’Mara would have had much less motive to have ignored the complaint at the time and then deny that it had been made.

62Both Mr. O’Mara and Mr. Ahmadi testified that it was Mosaic company policy to insist that uniforms be returned freshly dry cleaned in order for the departing employee to be reimbursed for the entire uniform deposit. The applicant provided no evidence to refute the respondents’ explanation. Mr. O’Mara may well have been somewhat graphic in his conversation with the applicant, in terms of his alleged statement, “we can’t take back a stinky, dirty uniform”. However, this statement fails to prove any discriminatory actions on the part of Mr. O’Mara. Fundamentally the applicant also failed to provide any evidence that he was treated any differently from any other Mosaic employee with regard to the uniform return policy. I therefore find that the applicant’s third allegation against Mr. O’Mara is unproven.

63In sum, I find that the applicant has failed to demonstrate any Code violation on the part of Mr. O’Mara and therefore the Application should be dismissed as against him.

Yama Ahmadi

64The applicant also alleges four Code-related violations by Mr. Ahmadi:

1. That Mr.Ahmadi was complicit in a scheme to deprive the applicant of overtime pay legitimately owed to the applicant and to delay the applicant’s paycheques;
2. That the applicant was discriminated against because of his ethnic background and place of origin due to Mr.Ahmadi’s insistence that, in order for the applicant to have his full deposit reimbursed, the Mosaic uniform be dry cleaned before returning;
3. That the applicant was discriminated against because of his ethnic background and place of origin due to Mr.Ahmadi’s position that the amount reimbursable to the applicant on return of his uniform was $57 and not $58 as claimed by the applicant:
4. That during the course of the applicant’s employment with Mosaic, Mr.Ahmadi harassed the applicant by making derogatory remarks to the applicant about the fact the applicant was Jewish and from Israel.

65Mr. Ahmadi’s uncontested testimony was that he had no responsibility for payroll. I therefore find that the applicant’s allegations with regard to the failure to pay overtime and delay of his pay cheques must fail. I note also, that for the same reasons I give above with regard to Mr. O’Mara’s Code-related culpability for the non-payment of overtime, I find that there is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Ahmadi discriminated against the applicant with regard to overtime payments.

66With regard to the allegation of discrimination regarding the insistence that the uniform be returned in a freshly dry cleaned state I find that, for the same reasons given above with regard to Mr. O’Mara, the second allegation against Mr. Ahmadi must also be dismissed.

67Similarly, the applicant presented no evidence that, even if the applicant was being short-changed a dollar by Mr. Ahmadi in terms of the proper amount due for reimbursement for uniform, this action was in any way Code-related. I therefore find that the applicant’s third allegation against Mr. Ahmadi must fail.

68Again, having regard to the respective parties’ credibility, I also reject the applicant’s allegation of harassment. Both the applicant and Mr. Ahmadi were at least equally credible in their allegations and denials. There was no collaboration for either version. Based on the factors in DeForest, above, I therefore do not accept that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr. Ahmadi made the derogatory remarks alleged to have occurred between April and October 2010. In terms of internal consistency, I note that Mr. Ahmadi’s testimony was unequivocal, both in his direct examination and in cross examination, with regard to the fact that he denied making any derogatory remarks about the applicant’s ethnicity or place of origin. The applicant was also vague about the timing of the remarks, eg., it was, “sometime during April or May” that Mr. Ahmadi allegedly made the remark, “it’s just money, you people are greedy”. Most significantly, there is absolutely no mention of any derogatory remarks being made by Mr. Ahmadi during the April to October period contained in the Application or the Reply.

69By his own admission Mr. Ahmadi made a reference to Jerusalem in his conversation with the applicant in December 2010. However, Mr. Ahmadi argues that if interpreted with the proper punctuation, the remark was not derogatory with regard to individuals originating in Jerusalem. I accept Mr. Ahmadi’s argument that his statement should be interpreted as rhetorical in the sense of, “…all people coming from that place [Jerusalem] counting money? NO!...”. I accept that the remark was in fact a denial of a negative stereotype and therefore do not find that it was vexatious or was known, or ought reasonably to be known, to be unwelcome to the applicant so as to engage s.10(1) of the Code. I come to this conclusion because, due to the virtually unintelligible nature of the original audio recording and the fact that the applicant transcribed the audio tape himself, Exhibit 1 is a completely unreliable document. Mr. Ahmadi’s position is also supported by the fact that other than the reference to Jerusalem made by Mr. Ahmadi at line 102 of Exhibit 1, the 112 line, single space, transcript contains no other language referring to the applicant’s ethnicity or place of origin.

70Finally, I find that the applicant’s submissions that Mr. Ahmadi is a Muslim and has “nothing in common” with him and that Mr. Ahmadi is originally from Afghanistan, which is an “enemy country to Israel”, are not supported by the evidence.

71For the above reasons, I find that the applicant has also failed to demonstrate any Code violation on the part of Mr. Ahmadi and therefore the Application should also be dismissed as against that respondent.

ORDER

72The Application is dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of February, 2013.

”signed by”

Alan G. Smith Member