Chopra v. Aritzia LP, 2014 HRTO 1094

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mukesh Chopra

Applicant

-and-

Aritzia LP, Paul Kovach and Denielle Dunn

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: July 25, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1094

Indexed as: Chopra v. Aritzia LP

APPEARANCES

Mukesh Chopra, Applicant

Self-represented

Aritzia LP, Paul Kovach, and Denielle Dunn, Respondents

Kathryn Bird, Counsel

1This Application was filed on May 27, 2013, and alleges discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, ethnic origin, and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In the Reply, the applicant raises age and sex (gender) as additional Code grounds.

2The respondents have filed a joint Response denying the allegations.

3The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) on October 24, 2013 (“the CAD”), directing, on its own initiative, that a summary hearing be held to determine whether the 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 proceed.

4The summary hearing proceeded on April 15, 2014, with all parties participating. Prior to the call, the respondents filed written submissions and a case book. These materials, the parties’ submissions, and the pleadings have been carefully considered by the Tribunal.

5The Tribunal’s Rule 19A.6 provides that where the Tribunal decides not to dismiss an application following a summary hearing, it does not need to give reasons. However, in these circumstances the following brief comments are appropriate.

6Based upon the submissions of the parties, it is clear that the Tribunal will need to make credibility findings between the applicant and the respondents which will go to the issue of whether or not the applicant was subjected to differential treatment based upon Code grounds. For example, there is a dispute between the parties about what was said about the corporate respondent’s return policy when the personal respondent Denielle Dunn removed the applicant from the sales line, as well as why the applicant was removed from the line, and who was in the line. The Tribunal will need to hear evidence about this issue.

7Further, the Tribunal will need to hear evidence about the trespass ban that the respondents issued to the applicant. The applicant asserts that the prohibition was issued after he raised allegations of discrimination, with the respondents submitting that it was based upon a number of factors, including the applicant’s conduct and returns history.

8Accordingly, the Application can continue to proceed.

9The Tribunal does not have the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness. See, for example, Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389 at para. 17. Discrimination under the Code generally involves an allegation of adverse treatment because of one or more of the grounds listed in the Code. Adverse treatment is not discriminatory in the legal sense unless there is proof that one or more of the personal characteristics listed in the Code were a factor in the treatment the applicant experienced.

10Finding that the Application can continue to proceed does not, obviously, mean that the Application will be successful at hearing. The applicant is reminded that he bears the onus of proving that he was subjected to discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

11The respondents have not marked off that they are agreeable to mediation. If the respondents are now agreeable to mediation, they are to advise the Tribunal, copying the applicant, within 10 days of the date of this Interim Decision. In the event that they are not agreeable, the Application will be in the queue to be scheduled for a one-day hearing in Toronto.

12I am not seized with this matter.