HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Stavroula Caloca
Applicant
-and-
The Hellenic Community of Ottawa and District (owner of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary Greek Orthodox Church) and Alex Michalopulos
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson
Indexed as: Caloca v. The Hellenic Community of Ottawa and District
APPEARANCES
Stavroula Caloca, Applicant
Arghavan Gerami, Counsel
The Hellenic Community of Ottawa and District (owner of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary Greek Orthodox Church) and Alex Michalopulos, Respondents
Raquel Chisholm, Counsel
Introduction
1This Application was filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on January 30, 2013, and alleges discrimination with respect to services, goods and facilities on the basis of marital status.
2The applicant, Stavroula (“Voula”) Caloca, and her partner, Paraskevas (“Paris”) Mitritsakis, are Greek Orthodox Christians. The organizational respondent, the Hellenic Community of Ottawa and District (the “Community” or the “HCO”), owns the Dormition of the Virgin Mary Greek Orthodox Church (the “Church”). The individual respondent, Father Alex Michalopulos (“Fr. Alex”), is an employee of the HCO, and Dean of the Church.
3In her Application, the applicant alleges that she has been prohibited from attending the Church, and the attached community centre, due to the identity of her partner, Mr. Mitritsakis. She also alleges that she is being punished because she chose to leave her husband, and chose Mr. Mitritsakis as her new partner. She explains in the Application that she and Mr. Mitritsakis received a letter from counsel for the Church stating that they were prohibited from entering the HCO’s premises. The letter stated that the prohibition was based on an abusive call that the applicant made to the Church’s Office Administrator, as well as threatening comments Mr. Mitritsakis made about Fr. Alex.
4In their Response to the Application, the respondents submit that the applicant and her partner, Mr. Mitritsakis, engaged in abusive and threatening behaviour that posed a threat to Fr. Alex, HCO staff, and members of the Community, and which led to them being barred from the premises of the HCO. The respondents submit that, contrary to the applicant’s allegations, her exclusion from the premises had nothing to do with the fact that the applicant and her husband are no longer together, or whether or not Fr. Alex approved of her choice of partner.
EVIDENCE
5The applicant and the individual respondent, Fr. Alex, gave evidence at the hearing. In addition, the applicant called Mr. Mitritsakis as a witness, and the respondents called Penny Reklitis, the Church’s Office Administrator, and Dean Karakasis, President of the HCO in 2011 and 2012, as witnesses.
6The parties agreed that Fr. Alex and the respondents’ witnesses could rely on their witness statements. These individuals adopted the contents of their witness statements, and were asked some additional questions by counsel for the respondents, followed by cross-examination and re-examination.
7The parties also provided the Tribunal with several documents.
Background
The applicant
8The applicant testified that she is Greek Orthodox, and that she grew up in Ottawa. She was married, but separated from her husband in July 2011. At the time of the hearing, divorce proceedings were ongoing. She has three children, one of whom has special needs.
9The Community and the Church formed a big part of her life. She attended mass, met elders and friends, and went to events and services at the Church. Two of her children attended Sunday school, and she was also the director of the “play group” at the Church for a year.
10When the applicant got married in 1992, she began paying for Community memberships. Prior to that, her parents paid for memberships. She last paid for a membership in January 2011, for the 2011 year.
11The applicant felt very welcome and “at home” at the Church. She liked the interaction, and she felt that she belonged there. She testified that there were no incidents or issues prior to her separation from her husband.
12The applicant explained that her father passed away in November 2009, and his funeral and ceremonies at both 40 days and one year after his passing were held at the Church. She also explained that her mother passed away in October 2013, and that she had been taking care of her mother prior to that. She took her mother to the Church, but after the incidents to which this Application relates occurred, her mother was not able to go to the Church, although she wanted to go. The applicant testified that she told her children “a little white lie” that she did not feel like going to church, and that she was going through “a lot”.
13The applicant was married by Fr. Alex and another priest. With respect to Fr. Alex’s relationship with her family, the applicant testified that, prior to separating from her husband, Fr. Alex was always very nice, gentle, kind and loving. He was good with her children, and Fr. Alex and her husband would speak to each other in Spanish. She also confided in Fr. Alex.
14The applicant testified that her relationship with her new partner, Mr. Mitritsakis, began at some point in August 2011. She explained that she started seeing him in the first week of August 2011, just for coffee, but their “official date” was at the 2011 Greek Festival, around August 20, 2011. She also explained that it is customary to introduce future partners to parents, and Mr. Mitritsakis met the applicant’s mother on August 17, 2011. He was also introduced to her children, and they went on family outings, such as fishing, picnics and swimming.
Mr. Mitritsakis
15Mr. Mitritsakis testified that he was born in Greece and moved to Canada in 1971. He lived in the Ottawa area and was married for 28 years. In 2002, he separated and went to Florida for five years, followed by Greece for two years. He eventually moved to Gatineau. He has two children, who were baptized at the Church.
16Mr. Mitritsakis testified that, once in a while, he and the applicant would go out for coffee and talk about their children and their problems. She had left her husband, and they became closer. As is customary, he met the applicant’s family, and they started seeing each other more regularly. He also met her children, and they went on a picnic and he took her children fishing. They then decided to meet their friends and go to the Greek Festival.
Fr. Alex
17Fr. Alex was born in Argentina. He is married, and has three children. He is Greek, and an Orthodox priest, and was baptized as an Orthodox Christian. He has been the Dean of the Church in Ottawa since May 1992, and serves approximately 2,000 families who are parishioners. He has always had a friendly relationship with the applicant and her former husband. He first met the applicant and her family when he arrived in Ottawa on or about May 15, 1992. The second marriage ceremony he performed in Ottawa was the applicant’s wedding, and he baptized her children.
18Fr. Alex’s evidence is that, until several years prior to the start of events giving rise to this Application, the applicant was an active member of the Church community. At one time, she was the Director of the children’s play group for a year. Fr. Alex had rarely seen the applicant since her father’s death in 2009. The last time he spoke to the applicant, prior to the events of August 2011, was at her father’s one-year memorial service on October 24, 2010, after which the applicant never attended church or any community events.
Ms. Reklitis
19Ms. Reklitis has been the Church Office Administrator since January 2005. Her office is in the Church. She completes all of the paperwork in relation to baptisms, weddings, and funerals, and she fields all calls and email for Fr. Alex. She was born and raised in the HCO and has attended the Church her whole life. She has known the applicant since they were children, and she testified that she has known Fr. Alex since he arrived in Canada in 1992.
Mr. Karakasis
20As President of the HCO in 2011 and 2012, Mr. Karakasis was the senior volunteer of the Church. He was the Chair of the Board of Directors, and the liaison between the Board and the staff and clergy. He is currently Past President, and a Director of the Board. He knew the applicant as, about six to eight years ago, she was a kindergarten teacher at the Greek school when he was the President of the Parents and Guardians Association. He did not know Mr. Mitritsakis.
The Greek Festival – August 2011
21The applicant testified that her relationship with Mr. Mitritsakis was made known to the community at the Greek Festival, which she attended with Mr. Mitritsakis and two of her children, around August 20, 2011. The applicant did not witness anything unusual at the Festival, and there was no mention of any incident, or anything unusual going on. Also, there was no change in Mr. Mitritsakis’s mood or behavior while at the Festival.
22The applicant testified that Mr. Mitritsakis went to buy food, and later went to buy dessert, and that she could see him from where she was sitting near the dessert counter, but she could not hear anything that was said.
23Before leaving the Festival, the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis went to get dessert for her son who was with his father that day. Fr. Alex’s wife was volunteering at the dessert counter. The applicant and Fr. Alex’s wife hugged and kissed, and the applicant told Fr. Alex’s wife about her “situation”, and introduced her to Mr. Mitritsakis. Fr. Alex then came along and the applicant told him about her situation with her husband. She introduced Mr. Mitritsakis to Fr. Alex. Fr. Alex then went around to his wife and whispered something in her ear, and Fr. Alex’s wife made a hand signal for the applicant to call her at some point. They left the Festival shortly after that.
24In cross-examination, the applicant testified that she is positive that she introduced Mr. Mitritsakis to Fr. Alex at the Festival, and explained her marital situation.
25Mr. Mitritsakis testified that he attended the Greek Festival with the applicant and her children. At one point, he went to pick up desserts at the dessert table. Nobody went with him. He approached the counter, and there was a big line up. A lady was just starting behind the counter. He spoke to her in English and ordered a number of desserts and a coffee. He testified that she “corrected” him. He explained that there were three or four more ladies, but they were busy and there was a big line up, so the lady who just arrived and started working called him to “cut down” the line. He got his order and asked her to give him a tray. He then asked her if she had cinnamon or sesame seeds, and they did not have any. He testified that she “made a face” like he was “pulling her leg”. She then directed him to a fridge to serve himself drinks. He then went around and paid, and brought the desserts to the table.
26Mr. Mitritsakis testified that, before they left the Festival, they went to pick up another order of sweets for the applicant’s son. The applicant introduced Mr. Mitritsakis to the lady who served him, and she happened to be Fr. Alex’s wife. He also testified that the applicant introduced him to Fr. Alex, who was sitting nearby. In cross-examination he testified that he was chatting with Fr. Alex, and Fr. Alex’s wife made a sign to the applicant to call her.
27Fr. Alex’s evidence is that he encountered the applicant briefly at the Festival in early August 2011. The applicant told him that she was no longer with her husband, and that she was in a new relationship. She told him that she would like him to meet Mr. Mitritsakis some time, but she did not introduce Mr. Mitritsakis to him at the Festival.
28During the same evening, a group of female volunteers at the Festival pointed out to him a man who they said had been rude and aggressive with them as he ordered desserts from them. Fr. Alex advised the volunteers that if they experienced any further rudeness, they should seek assistance from the Festival security team. It was only later that evening that Fr. Alex realised that the man the volunteers had complained about was the new friend that the applicant had told him about.
29Fr. Alex explained further that when a couple of ladies behind the dessert booth said a customer was rude and loud, he asked if the customer was there. They pointed to Mr. Mitritsakis. Later on, his wife said that she saw him speaking to the applicant. She asked if the applicant told him that she was with someone else, and he asked his wife if she met him. She said, “yes, that man over there”, referring to Mr. Mitritsakis.
Phone call to Ms. Reklitis
30The applicant testified that sometime after the Greek Festival she called Ms. Reklitis, who she has known all of her life. She asked if Ms. Reklitis could certify that Mr. Mitritsakis was in Canada on a particular date. His children were baptized, and he wanted their “birth certificates” to prove he was in Canada. The applicant made the call from her cell phone while on the Queensway.
31The applicant testified that she thought Ms. Reklitis understood her request to obtain copies of baptism certificates, and she passed the phone to Mr. Mitritsakis. She testified that Mr. Mitritsakis said he needed copies of his children’s “birth certificates” to show he was resident in Canada at the time.
32Mr. Mitritsakis testified that when he and the applicant were going to visit the applicant’s mother, prior to the Greek Festival, he said that he had to go to the Community because he wanted copies of his children’s christening records. He explained that he had a problem with Greece claiming that he was in Greece in the 1970s, and that he had to clear that issue up the next time he went back.
33He testified that when he spoke to Ms. Reklitis she did not understand him. He said he just wanted to prove he was in Canada, but obviously she could not hear him because they were on the Queensway and the windows were open. Ms. Reklitis told him that Fr. Alex could not sign “such papers”, but he did not ask for papers to be signed. He testified that he just needed photocopies, because his home flooded and he did not have the originals.
34Mr. Mitritsakis testified that Ms. Reklitis kept telling him that Fr. Alex could not “sign papers” because it would be fraud. She told him to go to the Greek embassy. He hung up, as he could not get through to Ms. Reklitis as to what he needed. He testified that they did not communicate, and that it was a misunderstanding. He was not angry, but he was frustrated. He denied saying that Fr. Alex is a bad person. He also explained that he has a hearing issue due to working long-term, in an environment with noise, as an auto body collision repair expert.
35Ms. Reklitis’s evidence is that she received a telephone call from the applicant on August 17, 2011. The applicant told her that she was on her cell phone and driving on the Queensway. The applicant explained that a family friend needed help and she asked if Fr. Alex would sign some papers for him. The applicant then passed the phone to her friend, who identified himself as “Paris”.
36Mr. Mitritsakis explained that he needed to certify that he had lived in Canada for a certain number of years. She asked him whether Fr. Alex knew him and he replied, “no”, but that he had lived in Canada for many years and he could bring proof.
37Ms. Reklitis explained to Mr. Mitritsakis that Fr. Alex could not certify the document attesting to his residency because he did not know him, and that Fr. Alex’s clergy license could be “on the line” if he signed a false statement. She suggested that the Greek embassy would be able to verify his papers and provide the certification he was seeking, and she tried to give him the embassy phone number.
38Mr. Mitritsakis became very agitated and raised his voice. He told her that he did not want to hear anything more about the embassy, that a priest should help people who need help, and that Fr. Alex was a bad person and a liar. She advised him that she could not help him if he was going to be rude and disrespectful. She hung up the phone.
39Ms. Reklitis testified that the Church keeps records of baptisms, but that Mr. Mitritsakis was not asking for that. Rather, he was asking that Fr. Alex sign and certify that he had been in Canada, and Fr. Alex cannot do that unless the person knows him personally.
40In cross-examination, Ms. Reklitis confirmed that the applicant said that a family friend needed Fr. Alex’s help, and that the individual identified himself as “Paris”. At the time, Ms. Reklitis had not heard of him, and did not know who he was in relation to the applicant. She also confirmed that the request was to certify that Mr. Mitritsakis lived in Canada for a certain number of years. She testified that he never said anything about baptism records, nor was he seeking any documents. Rather, Mr. Mitritsakis said that he had documents that prove he had been in Canada.
41She testified that she received the call during the Greek Festival, and that she later reported the incident to Fr. Alex. She could not recall if it was during, or after, the Festival that she reported it to Fr. Alex. I note, however, that the respondents’ Response to the Application states that she did not advise Fr. Alex about the call.
42Fr. Alex’s evidence in his witness statement is that, sometime in August 2011, Ms. Reklitis told him that the applicant had called to ask if Fr. Alex could provide verification that Mr. Mitritsakis has been living in Canada for a certain number of years. Mr. Reklitis told the applicant that Fr. Alex did not know the man and could not sign anything on his behalf, and referred him to the Greek embassy. Ms. Reklitis told Fr. Alex that Mr. Mitritsakis had come on the phone and raised his voice. Because of his rudeness, Ms. Reklitis told Mr. Mitritsakis that Fr. Alex could not help him.
43When asked at the hearing if Ms. Reklitis told him about the phone call in August 2011, Fr. Alex testified that he really does not recall.
Email between the applicant and her ex-husband – October and December 2011
44The applicant testified that she exchanged emails with her ex-husband regarding their children, and that her ex-husband would criticize Mr. Mitritsakis for anything. She testified that her ex-husband said, why “don’t you talk to [Fr.] Alex, see what he thinks about letting [their son] live with Paris”. This appears to be stated in an email dated December 23, 2011.
45The applicant also referred to an email that she received from her ex-husband, dated October 5, 2011. In the email, the applicant’s ex-husband states, in part, as follows: “I know that Paris is on his best behavior for now but he will resort to his true nature (as evidenced prior to Labour day and at the Greek Festival…)”. The applicant testified that the email raised concerns for her, and she wanted to further investigate and find out exactly what happened at the Greek Festival that she was not aware of.
46The applicant also testified that she had a conversation with Fr. Alex’s wife and said, “you wanted me to call you, sorry I took so long, did you want something?” She replied, “oh no, just wanted to chat.” The applicant testified that she told Fr. Alex’s wife that she just received emails from her ex-husband regarding some kind of incident at the Greek Festival that Fr. Alex had told him about, and that Fr. Alex’s wife said, “oh, nothing happened.”
47In cross-examination, the applicant testified that she does not know what anybody might have said about Mr. Mitritsakis to Fr. Alex. The only thing she has is the email from her ex-husband about what Fr. Alex said.
48During the applicant’s cross-examination, an additional email to the applicant from her ex-husband, dated October 5, 2011, was located. It states, in part, as follows:
I do not appreciate Paris threatening to kill me. That on top of Father Alex of the Greek Orthodox Church telling me that one of the ladies selling coffee at the Greek Festival wanted to call security because he had been so rude makes me determined to keep [their son] for his safety.
49The applicant testified that the above email prompted her to make an appointment with Fr. Alex.
50In cross-examination, Mr. Mitritsakis testified that he only saw one email from the applicant’s ex-husband to her about a conversation with Fr. Alex, and he believed it was the email referred to above, dated December 23, 2011.
51He also testified that another email claiming, according to Fr. Alex, that the applicant’s youngest son should not live with them because he is a dangerous person, prompted them to go see Fr. Alex. He testified that the applicant showed him the email on her computer, and that it was not one of the emails referred to above. He also testified that, before meeting with Fr. Alex, court documents related to the applicant’s family law dispute indicated that Fr. Alex would be a witness.
52Fr. Alex’s evidence is that knew the applicant’s ex-husband well. Following their wedding, he used to visit the applicant and her ex-husband in their home. After they had children, he visited them at times for Christmas or Easter, and sometimes on the children’s birthdays. The applicant’s ex-husband used to attend church service with the applicant and their children.
53Fr. Alex’s evidence is that, in early September 2011, the applicant’s ex-husband called him to tell him about his concerns, and that his wife had left him, and how one of his sons was feeling about his mother’s new boyfriend. He was told that the applicant’s son was afraid of Mr. Mitritsakis because he was verbally abusive, and that the son did not want to live with them any longer. When the applicant’s ex-husband asked him if he knew the new boyfriend, Fr. Alex mentioned that he had never met him, but had seen him at the Greek Festival, and that some parishioners complained about his abruptness. He did not express any opinion with respect to the applicant’s son being in Mr. Mitritsakis’s company.
54In cross-examination, Fr. Alex testified that he told the applicant’s ex-husband that the only thing he knew about Mr. Mitritsakis is that a complaint came to him from two ladies at the Greek Festival about Mr. Mitritsakis being rude and loud. He assumed it was true. He denied conveying anything about security being called when he spoke to the applicant’s ex-husband. He also testified that it was unusual for the applicant’s ex-husband to call him, as he had never received a call from him before. The last time he saw him was shortly after the applicant’s father passed away in 2009, when he visited their home. He was not the applicant’s ex-husband’s spiritual advisor.
October 18, 2011 meeting with Fr. Alex
55The applicant testified that she phoned Ms. Reklitis on October 5, 2011, and indicated that she and Mr. Mitritsakis would like a meeting with Fr. Alex. Ms. Reklitis scheduled a meeting for October 18, 2011, in Fr. Alex’s office.
56The applicant testified that Mr. Mitritsakis accompanied her to the meeting with Fr. Alex. They walked into Fr. Alex’s office and he closed the door. The applicant sat down and re-introduced Mr. Mitritsakis to him. Mr. Mitritsakis asked Fr. Alex if he knew him and Fr. Alex said, “no”. Mr. Mitritsakis then questioned how Fr. Alex could make allegations about someone he does not know. The applicant testified that they were trying to clear up what happened at the Greek Festival, and the email exchanges between the applicant and her ex-husband. The applicant brought the email in question to the meeting.
57The applicant testified that when Mr. Mitritsakis asked how Fr. Alex could say something about someone he does not know, Fr. Alex said it was all hearsay and he should not believe rumours. Mr. Mitritsakis then said that he had evidence that Fr. Alex said something. Fr. Alex then said that four women came forward and complained. Mr. Mitritsakis responded that the only person that served him was Fr. Alex’s wife.
58The applicant testified that Fr. Alex then got up and said, “get out of my church”, and, “Penny, call the cops.” He did not want to look at the email.
59The applicant testified that, when asked to leave, they complied. She was just shocked. She did not know what to say. She had not heard “that” from a priest before. She testified that Paris said, in Greek, “what am I going to say, you are a bad person”, and they proceeded to leave. She did not go back to the Church after that incident.
60Mr. Mitritsakis testified that he and the applicant attended a meeting with Fr. Alex. He explained that the applicant called to make an appointment, for both of them, for what may have been a misunderstanding. He explained that the applicant’s husband had their three children for a weekend, after which he returned two of the children to the applicant, but kept their younger son. Her husband’s excuse for not returning the younger son was that, after Fr. Alex talked to him about Mr. Mitritsakis, the applicant’s home was not a safe place for the younger son. He testified that the applicant’s husband’s concluded, after a conversation with Fr. Alex, that he was a “murderer or serial killer”, as set out in an email from the applicant’s husband. He explained that he did not know Fr. Alex, and that the first time Fr. Alex saw him was in front of the dessert counter at the Greek Festival. With respect to the purpose of the meeting, he testified that he was curious to see what Fr. Alex knew about him that he did not know himself.
61Mr. Mitritsakis testified that the applicant sat down in Fr. Alex’s office and he asked Fr. Alex if he knew him. Fr. Alex said, “no, I don’t know you.” He then asked Fr. Alex how he could express an opinion about a person he does not know, and Fr. Alex said that he did not express an opinion. He said to Fr. Alex that Fr. Alex made claims about him. Fr. Alex said that it was rumours and that people talk. Mr. Mitritsakis questioned Fr. Alex further and Fr. Alex said it was hearsay. Mr. Mitritsakis then referred to the claims being in writing, and asked Fr. Alex what he told the applicant’s husband about him, or what he knew about him. Mr. Mitritsakis testified that he did not show Fr. Alex the email from the applicant’s husband, but that the applicant had the email.
62Mr. Mitritsakis testified that the applicant started to cry so he said, “Voula, let’s go”. Fr. Alex then said that, at the Greek Festival, four ladies in different locations called him to call security to throw Mr. Mitritsakis out. Mr. Mitritsakis asked Fr. Alex which four ladies, and said that the only female he spoke to that he did not know was Fr. Alex’s wife. Fr. Alex then started calling to Ms. Reklitis, “Penny, call the police, Penny, call the police”. He also testified that Fr. Alex yelled, “get out my church, get out of my church.” At the hearing, Mr. Mitritsakis testified that “it is nobody’s church”. He also testified that he said to Fr. Alex that he is “a filthy person”. He denied saying anything else, and testified that the applicant said absolutely nothing.
63Ms. Reklitis’s evidence is that, on October 5, 2011, the applicant called her to request a brief appointment with Fr. Alex, which was booked for 11:20 a.m. on October 18, 2011. Ms. Reklitis testified that when someone calls for an appointment, she makes a note of who is coming so Fr. Alex will know who to greet. She testified that the applicant asked for an appointment for herself, and did not mention that anyone else was coming. Unexpectedly, Mr. Mitritsakis accompanied the applicant to the appointment. She did not know who Mr. Mitritsakis was at the time, and the applicant did not introduce him to her.
64In cross-examination, Ms. Reklitis testified that she was surprised that the applicant brought someone with her to the meeting, because she did not say that she was going to. At the time, she did not know that that applicant was separated, and she did not know who Mr. Mitritsakis was. She testified that, had the applicant mentioned she was coming with her partner, she would have entered it into her calendar.
65Ms. Reklitis’s evidence is that the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis went into Fr. Alex’s office. She testified that, from her office, she can see whether or not Fr. Alex’s door is open or closed, and she is certain that he did not close his door. Ms. Reklitis was chatting with her cousin and was not listening to the conversation in Fr. Alex’s office. Within a minute, she heard raised voices. In cross-examination, she explained that she did not hear what was exchanged in the room at first, but it was not longer than two minutes before she heard raised voices, and they were “back out with voices yelling”.
66Ms. Reklitis heard Mr. Mitritsakis yelling obscenities at Fr. Alex in Greek. He yelled that Fr. Alex was a “paleanthropos”, which translates as “a rotten person”, a “liar” and “scum”. Fr. Alex said, “you’re calling me what? In a church? In my parish”, or words to that effect, and he told Mr. Mitritsakis and the applicant to leave immediately.
67Mr. Mitritsakis left the office and entered the narthex (the entrance area of the Church). Mr. Mitritsakis yelled at Fr. Alex, “na pas sto diavolo vre malaka”, which translates as “go to hell, you masturbator”. Ms. Reklitis was dumbfounded and shaken. She and her cousin both told Mr. Mitritsakis that he should be ashamed of himself for talking that way to a priest in a church, and they said, “shame on you”. Mr. Mitritsakis responded with a threat to Fr. Alex, “pou iha pas, tha se ftiaxo”, which translates as “where you gonna go, I’m gonna fix you”.
68Fr. Alex instructed Ms. Reklitis to call the police, and said that he would not be threatened in his own church. The applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis then headed for the door. The applicant made no effort to interfere or stop her friend’s disrespectful and vulgar comments. Instead, the applicant chastised Fr. Alex by asking, “what kind of priest are you to call the police on people?” She added that Fr. Alex was “no good” and he was “not even a priest”.
69Ms. Reklitis testified that they spoke with Mr. Karakasis and the General Manager at the time. Her evidence is that she felt intimidated and fearful for her safety, and that the reason the applicant was told to leave the premises was because of “the couple’s unacceptable, abusive and threatening conduct”, and not because of her marital status.
70Fr. Alex’s evidence is that Ms. Reklitis arranged a meeting with him and the applicant for October 18, 2011, and that, unexpectedly, Mr. Mitritsakis accompanied the applicant to the appointment. This was the first time he met Mr. Mitritsakis.
71Fr. Alex welcomed the applicant into his office and she sat down. The applicant was very cold towards him, and only briefly extended her hand, contrary to the traditional Greek culture of hugging and kissing each other on each cheek. He immediately knew something was wrong when the applicant did not allow him to greet her this way. Only then did Mr. Mitritsakis come in.
72Mr. Mitritsakis did not take the time to say good morning and immediately started to accuse him of having said unjust things about him to the applicant’s ex-husband. Mr. Mitritsakis accused him of writing an email to the applicant’s ex-husband. Fr. Alex had never emailed the applicant’s ex-husband. Mr. Mitritsakis threw down what appeared to be a printed email message on his desk, but then grabbed it out of his hands before he had a chance to read it, while yelling that he was a “paleanthropos”, which translates as “a rotten person”, and a liar.
73Fr. Alex also testified that Mr. Mitritsakis initially asked, “do you know me?” and Fr. Alex said, “no”. Mr. Mitritsakis then said, “if you don’t know me, how can you say things about me”, while throwing a paper in front of him. Fr. Alex said, “people can write whatever they want”, and Mr. Mitritsakis told him to read what the applicant’s ex-husband wrote that Fr. Alex had told him. Fr. Alex said, “people can say whatever they want to say”, and Mr. Mitritsakis grabbed the paper out of his hand. Fr. Alex testified that, when Mr. Mitritsakis began calling him names, Fr. Alex said, “get out of my office”.
74Mr. Mitritsakis and the applicant proceeded to leave his office and enter the narthex, when Mr. Mitritsakis ended his volatile verbal explosion stating, “na pas sto diavolo vre malaka”, which translates as “go to hell, you masturbator”. Fr. Alex heard Ms. Reklitis’s cousin telling Mr. Mitritsakis to be ashamed of himself for his language and behaviour. Mr. Mitritsakis yelled out, “pou that pas, tha seftiaxo”, which translates as “where you gonna go, I’m gonna fix you”. At that point, Fr. Alex instructed Ms. Reklitis to call the police.
75The applicant’s response to Fr. Alex’s instructions to call the police was, “what kind of a priest are you to call the police on people”, and she added that he was no good and that he was not even a priest. Fr. Alex testified that the applicant said to him, “you are not even baptized”.
76Fr. Alex felt threatened by Mr. Mitritsakis’s comments and behaviour and the applicant did not attempt to interfere with Mr. Mitritsakis’s rude, disrespectful and vulgar comments towards him.
77Fr. Alex decided not to call the police because everything happened so quickly and Mr. Mitritsakis and the applicant had already left. He and Mr. Reklitis called the HCO’s GM and Mr. Karakasis, to let them know of the situation and he relayed the entire incident to them. Although the HCO leadership recommended that he pursue calling the police and initiate a trespass letter to both Mr. Mitritsakis and the applicant, he decided not to proceed with any actions. He used his judgment as a priest to be forgiving and he hoped that after Mr. Mitritsakis and the applicant both calmed down they would reassess the situation in a peaceful and rational manner.
78Mr. Karakasis’s evidence is that, in mid-October 2011, Fr. Alex told him about an incident that had occurred on October 18, 2011, when Fr. Alex met with the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis at the Church. Fr. Alex explained that the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis had been angry and threatening. Fr. Alex was worried and stressed due to this interaction. Mr. Karakasis’s first reaction was to ensure that Fr. Alex was safe and to ask him whether he or the Board could do anything. There was no plan to do anything at that stage.
79Following his discussion with Fr. Alex, he spoke to Ms. Reklitis and her cousin. They both described the poor behaviour on the part of the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis. Ms. Reklitis also told him about a phone call she received from the applicant asking Fr. Alex to sign paperwork attesting to knowing Mr. Mitritsakis when he did not.
80Mr. Karakasis spoke about the above to the Executive Committee of the Board. In the end, they felt that the threats made by the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis to Fr. Alex on October 18, 2011 warranted seeking police assistance. He spoke to Fr. Alex and offered to call the police for him. Fr. Alex decided not to contact the police.
The applicant’s May 17, 2012 email to Ms. Reklitis
81On May 17, 2012, Ms. Reklitis sent an email to all HCO members and friends regarding a 20th year anniversary celebration for Fr. Alex. The applicant testified that she was just so hurt from the incident the previous October, that she wrote to Ms. Reklitis as follows:
How can you acknowledge recognizing Father Alex when, you yourself viewed that he kicked his fellow parishioners out of HIS church and threatened to call the police if they didn’t leave? I am very appalled. I feel that my family is no longer welcome in the church. We have since started going to another Orthodox church where we are welcome. Father Alex doesn’t have the right to gossip to other parishiners [sic] about someone he doesn’t know. That is not the job of a priest. How can he threaten one’s reputation without knowing the person he’s making comments about and when he’s confronted with the claim made by himself, kicks the parisheners [sic] out of the church and threatens to call the police? A priest should welcome all in his parish and try to keep the peace. A priest should be neutral and not side with one side or another. He has been a very big disappointment and what happened that day surely showed his true colours. What a shame!!! I trusted him, confessed confidential stuff to him, and he then turned his back on me.
Voula
P.S. According to Paris, don’t you think it’s about time that the priest be baptized as Orthodox? It is not enough that he’s not Greek, but, it’s a shame to not even be baptized Orthodox!!!!!!!!!
82The applicant testified that she queried how many other parishioners are treated like that. She felt so bad, and out of shock, she was trying to convey and said that she went to try to rectify a situation at the Greek Festival, only to be kicked out, and now “this guy gets honourable mention”. She testified that the only reason she went to Fr. Alex was to clear up any misconceptions, and to see if what she had heard from her ex-husband was true, and hopefully Fr. Alex could maybe keep the peace.
83With respect to the comment about Fr. Alex not being baptized as Orthodox, the applicant testified that she picked that up from her father, as he would say, when angry, “what, are you not baptized, are you Albanian.” She testified that it came out in anger, and she really regrets saying that. She testified that she really looks up to Fr. Alex, and that he was there for her children and when her father passed away. She still respects his authority.
84With respect to saying that Fr. Alex is not Greek, in cross-examination, the applicant testified that Fr. Alex is Greek, but that she just questions the spelling of his last name because usually there is a “u”.
85The applicant testified that she attended the Greek Festival twice in 2012 with Mr. Mitritsakis and two of her sons, and there were no incidents. She did not interact with anyone related to the events in this Application, but saw friends and had a good time. She felt comfortable enough to go to the Greek Festival.
86In cross-examination, the applicant testified that she did not pay her membership fees for 2012, as she was not sure if she was still accepted at the Church. She started going to another church, but testified that it was not the same as there is only one Greek-speaking Greek Orthodox church in Ottawa.
87Ms. Reklitis’s evidence is that she was shocked by the applicant’s email. She had not heard from nor seen the applicant since October 2011. She did not respond to the applicant’s message. She did not tell Fr. Alex about the email (or anyone else), because she did not want to upset him. She questioned why the applicant questioned in her email why Fr. Alex threatened to call the police. Ms. Reklitis testified that Fr. Alex was obviously threatened.
88Ms. Reklitis decided to remove the applicant from the Community’s email list. She felt that any further correspondence or email to the applicant would only make matters worse, and, given that the anniversary celebration was imminent, there would be more email. Moreover, the applicant had stated that she found another church.
The applicant’s August 31 and October 24, 2012 telephone calls
89The applicant testified that she called Ms. Reklitis’s co-worker on August 31, 2012, and asked her if she was omitted from the Community mailing list, and if there was a mistake, as she was not receiving any emails. The co-worker said that she would speak to Ms. Reklitis.
90Ms. Reklitis’s evidence is that this was the next time that she heard from the applicant, after the applicant’s May 17, 2012 email. Ms. Reklitis asked her co-worker to refer the applicant to her if she called again.
91The applicant testified that she also spoke to Ms. Reklitis on October 24, 2012, and said that she had not received any email, and asked why she was deleted from the list. She testified that Ms. Reklitis said, “well, Voula, the person you are dating”. The applicant responded, “what does the person I’m dating have anything to do with me being deleted from the list”, and Mr. Reklitis did not say anything. The applicant said, “okay, bye”, and hung up. She might have raised her tone of voice because of the answer she heard.
92The applicant testified that Mr. Mitritsakis was not with her when she made the call to Ms. Reklitis, and he did not, to her knowledge, speak to her that day.
93Mr. Mitritsakis was asked about a telephone call the applicant made to Ms. Reklitis. He testified that he heard one side of a conversation when the applicant asked why she was removed from the Community list, but that he did not speak to Ms. Reklitis.
94Ms. Reklitis’s evidence is that the applicant called her on October 24, 2012 about not receiving email, and that the applicant began the phone call calmly. Ms. Reklitis reminded the applicant about her email and statement that she and Mr. Mitritsakis had been welcomed into another Orthodox church. The applicant soon became upset and started raising her voice. Ms. Reklitis explained to the applicant that the tone of her email about Fr. Alex was unacceptable and rude.
95Ms. Reklitis could not recall precisely what the applicant said because she was yelling so loudly and Ms. Reklitis felt very shaken. After several seconds of the applicant yelling, Mr. Mitritsakis came on the phone, also yelling. Some of his words, in Greek, were “Fr. Alex is a slobbering dirty scum”, and a “crook”, and he threatened, “I will fix him”. Ms. Reklitis told Mr. Mitritsakis that his language was not tolerated at the Community and hung up the phone, with Mr. Mitritsakis still yelling at her.
96Ms. Reklitis was shaken and upset. She immediately alerted the HCO’s General Manager by email, and advised her to inform staff not to take any calls from either the applicant or Mr. Mitritsakis. The General Manager called her immediately and she went to see her in a building next to the Church. She did not want to be alone in the Church. She broke down, then calmed down enough to tell “them” what happened. She spoke to Fr. Alex about this incident.
Feast day of St. Demetrios – Friday, October 26, 2014
97The applicant testified that she attended mass at the Church with Mr. Mitritsakis and her son for St. Demetrios, to commune her son who has special needs. Fr. Alex performed the mass. In cross-examination, the applicant explained that Mr. Mitritsakis tries to go to church on St. Demetrios, and they thought that it would be a perfect opportunity to take her son out of school and take him to church, as it was a weekday and there would not be a lot of people. The applicant also explained that St. Demetrios is the saint that Mr. Mitritsakis worships, and Mr. Mitritsakis explained that St. Demetrios is his patron saint.
98Mr. Mitritsakis also testified that he suggested to the applicant that they take her son to church for communion on St. Demetrios Day, as it was on a Friday and there would not be too many people there, as they did not know how the applicant’s son would react.
99The applicant testified that she sat three rows from the front of the Church, because her son has special needs and they intended to go to communion. She explained that people at the front usually receive communion first, and, if her son can last long enough, they receive communion and then leave. She testified that her son sat through the whole service, received communion, and they left. It was the first time he had ever done that.
100In cross-examination, the applicant testified that it is possible that she sat in the front row, but that it was not her intention to sit face-to-face with Fr. Alex, or intimidate him. I note that the applicant states in her Application that they sat in the front pew of the Church so they could leave quickly, as she still felt intimidated and uncomfortable.
101The applicant testified that people are allowed to sit at the front of the Church, unless it is barricaded with ropes. In cross-examination, she explained that she usually does not go to services on weekdays. She usually goes on Sundays and sees that the front row is cordoned off for Sunday school, or embassy staff. She usually sits at the back on Sundays, but she does not have her children with her because they are in Sunday school.
102The applicant testified that the pews were sparsely full on October 26, 2012. Ten or fifteen minutes after she sat down, the then President of the HCO, Mr. Karakasis, and the then Vice-president (“VP”) sat right beside her. They kept staring at her and she felt very intimidated. She questioned why they came alone, without their families, to a weekday service. To lessen the intimidation, she leaned over to talk with Mr. Karakasis and said that she would like to have a word with him after the service. In cross-examination, she testified that it was a tense situation. She also testified that she had to plan for her father’s 3-year memorial service. Her son then went up for communion with Mr. Mitritsakis, after which they went outside to wait for the applicant.
103Mr. Mitritsakis testified that when they entered the Church, there were a lot of people on the right side, and the left side was not full, so they sat on the left-hand side, in the third row from the front because it was empty and was the first empty row. They kept the applicant’s son between them, so that if anything happened, Mr. Mitritsakis was at the corridor and could take him out and not disturb anybody. At the same time, the applicant was supposed to meet with Fr. Alex regarding the 3-year anniversary of her father’s death.
104Mr. Mitritsakis testified that he went up with the applicant’s son and that Fr. Alex gave him communion. They then went out to the parking lot to wait for mass to finish and for the applicant to talk to Fr. Alex regarding the 3-year anniversary for her father. He explained that the applicant was waiting because she wanted to talk to Fr. Alex about her father.
105Fr. Alex’s evidence is that, at approximately 10:40 a.m. on October 26, 2012, during a service for the feast of St. Demetrios, he was standing at the altar when he turned to bless the congregation and noticed the applicant, Mr. Mitritsakis, and one of the applicant’s children sitting in the front pew. He was shocked and started shaking. Because he was concerned for his safety, he moved out of the sight of the parishioners and called Ms. Reklitis on his cell phone to advise her that they were sitting in the front pew. He told Ms. Reklitis that he was frightened and repeated several times to her that he was shaking.
106Soon after his call to Ms. Reklitis, Mr. Karakasis and the VP arrived at the Church and sat in the front pew near the applicant. They did not sit right next to the applicant, and there was still considerable space between them on the pew. Although he still felt nervous after Mr. Karakasis and the VP arrived, he felt protected.
107Fr. Alex explained when he testified that, in an Orthodox service, the priest has his back to the parishioners for 80 or 90% of the time. When he turned to do the blessing to the people, he saw the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis and froze, and started shaking. He also explained that everybody knows that on major feast days nobody sits in the left-side, front pew. Usually the Ambassador and the President of the Community sit there, and, on Sundays, it is reserved for Sunday school.
108Ms. Reklitis’s evidence is that, at approximately 10:40 a.m. on October 26, 2012, she was working in her office when she received a phone call from Fr. Alex, who was on his cell phone from inside the altar of the Church. He was whispering and sounded upset. He advised her that the applicant, Mr. Mitritsakis, and one of the applicant’s children were sitting in the front pew of the Church. He told her that he was frightened and told her several times that he was shaking.
109Ms. Reklitis explained that parishioners would not have seen Fr. Alex on the phone because the altar is not fully open to everyone’s view. There is a wall of icons, and a door that swings. One can see the altar, but not the areas on either side.
110Ms. Reklitis saw the applicant sitting in the front left-side pew. Her evidence is that it is rare that anyone sits there. It is akin to a “VIP” section, or used for Sunday school, and the applicant would know this. The Church was not crowded, and Ms. Reklitis believed that they sat there for the purpose of intimidating Fr. Alex. She testified that the left-front pew is usually where the Ambassador sits.
111Ms. Reklitis assured Fr. Alex that she would get help and that she would text him right back. She immediately advised the GM that Fr. Alex felt threatened, and the GM advised her to call the police if the situation escalated. The GM said that she would contact Mr. Karakasis and the VP of the HCO. Ms. Reklitis texted Fr. Alex to let him know that help was coming.
112Mr. Karakasis’s evidence is that, on October 26, 2012, he received a phone message from the HCO’s GM and an email from Ms. Reklitis regarding the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis being at the Church in the front pew, and that Fr. Alex felt really uncomfortable and threatened. He agreed to come to the Church right away.
113Mr. Karakasis called the VP, and the VP offered to go to the Church. They both arrived at the same time and met in the parking lot. They decided to go sit in the Church and to “see what happens”.
114The applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis were sitting in the left-hand, front pew. This was very unusual, as this pew was saved for VIPs on special occasions, and the applicant would know this. He found it odd and it was hard not to draw a conclusion that the applicant sat there to intimidate Fr. Alex, given its proximity to him during the service. It was the closest they could sit to him.
115Mr. Karakasis and the VP walked up the side and sat at the far end of the same pew as the applicant. They sat there to reassure Fr. Alex and to provide him with support. The pews are quite wide and they were not sitting close to the applicant.
After the service
116The applicant testified that, after the service, the applicant went to the narthex where she met Mr. Karakasis.
117She testified that, at one point, earlier in their encounter, she told Mr. Karakasis that she wanted to meet with Fr. Alex to plan a 3-year memorial service for her father. She testified that her brother also made efforts for the 3-year service for their father, but was not successful in making the arrangements. The applicant explained that she followed up about that because three years is very important. She was stuck as she did not have a priest. She called a priest at another church, and he said that he would have to talk to Fr. Alex, but Fr. Alex was out of town and he was not able to reach him. He was not going to perform the service unless he got the “okay” from Fr. Alex.
118The applicant testified that she and Mr. Karakasis proceeded down the stairs of the Church. The applicant said to Mr. Karakasis that she wanted him to meet somebody and her son, and she introduced Mr. Karakasis to Mr. Mitritsakis. Shortly after, the VP came and introduced himself to them as the VP.
119The applicant explained that, as one exits the Church, there is a wall on the right, and Mr. Mitritsakis was leaning against the wall, with her son. Mr. Karakasis and the VP approached Mr. Mitritsakis and said that Fr. Alex is their employee, and that they were there to protect him. She testified that Mr. Mitritsakis’s space was invaded, and he said to them, “you step on my toes, I will step on your throat.” They were really close. There was no other conversation, and Mr. Mitritsakis said, “Voula, let’s go”, and they left.
120Mr. Mitritsakis testified that when people came out of the Church, he and the applicant’s son went in front of the steps and stood against the wall, waiting. The applicant’s son was beside him. He testified that two gentlemen who had been sitting beside the applicant inside the Church came along. He explained that one gentleman was on his right side, and the other was in front of him. He testified that one gentleman said, “hi, I am the VP”, and asked him what he wanted from the priest. Mr. Mitritsakis said that he did not want anything from the priest. The gentleman, who Mr. Mitritsakis described at the hearing as the “fat fellow”, said, “we are here to protect the priest”, and Mr. Mitritsakis asked, “from whom?” The VP made a step forward, and Mr. Mitritsakis said, “you step on my toes, I’ll step on your throat.”
121Mr. Mitritsakis testified that his back was against the wall, and he could smell the holy bread on the man’s breath who was about five inches from the toes of his shoes. He testified that he was ready to defend himself no matter what, and, at the time, he felt that he may have to defend himself. He said, “Voula, let’s go”, and testified that the applicant was crying on the way to the car and on the way home.
122Mr. Karakasis’s evidence is that, after the service, the applicant met him in the narthex and asked him if she could speak with him. He suggested that they go outside. His concern was that it might escalate and he did not want that to happen in the narthex, surrounded by parishioners. They went out of the Church near the parking lot and stood before the north bell tower. The applicant introduced him to Mr. Mitritsakis and they started the conversation with some “small talk”.
123The VP came up to the group and introduced himself to Mr. Mitritsakis as the VP of the Board. Mr. Mitritsakis replied, “good for you”. The applicant started blaming Fr. Alex for his role in her son having been taken from her. She said that, as President, he should not entrust Fr. Alex with the spiritual leadership of the Community and she would tell him why.
124The applicant blamed Fr. Alex for telling her son that Mr. Mitritsakis was an evil person and a criminal. She said that Fr. Alex conspired with her ex-husband to tell members of the Community that Mr. Mitritsakis was a bad person in an effort to split them up as a couple. She kept talking about having her child taken away from her, that it was Fr. Alex’s fault, and that others should have it happen to know what it feels like.
125The applicant said that Fr. Alex had no right to be a priest in the church because he was “Albanian”. She referenced how Fr. Alex spells his name. Mr. Karakasis took this to be a very bigoted statement.
126Mr. Karakasis mentioned the October 2011 event to them and asked them what was going on then. Mr. Mitritsakis denied having ever raised his voice in the Church. Mr. Mitritsakis said that he was not threatening anyone, and that if people did not step on his toes, he would not step on theirs. Then Mr. Mitritsakis said that if someone stepped on his neck, he would “cut their throat”. Mr. Karakasis did not perceive this as a specific threat, but threatening in general. He was highly taken aback by this statement and the threatening tone of the conversation. He felt that the conversation needed to end.
127On the same day, Mr. Karakasis went to see the GM and asked her to arrange to have two security guards in attendance for the following Sunday service. He was worried that the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis would come to the service and disrupt it. Ms. Reklitis’s evidence is that she received an email from Mr. Karakasis to call a security company to book two security guards for Sunday’s service, and she did so. She testified that she never needed to get security for the Church before.
128Mr. Karakasis’s evidence is that he and “the leadership” sought input from a member of the Community who is in law enforcement, from the Board, and the Community’s legal counsel. They did so to respond to the stress that this incident was having on Fr. Alex and the Church staff, but also because of the leadership’s responsibility to parishioners and even members of the public who use the facility. They were concerned about risk of harm, or, if not harm, then disruption and hostility by the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis. The police constable advised him that if Mr. Mitritsakis and the applicant came to the Church again, they should tell them “you are not welcome on the property. Please leave now or we will call 911”.
129The evidence of both Fr. Alex and Ms. Reklitis is that, on the afternoon of October 26, 2012, they and the HCO’s GM held a conference call with a police officer, who was a member of their community, about their concern that Fr. Alex, other staff and members of the Community who were visiting Community premises were at risk of harm. The constable advised them that if Mr. Mitritsakis and the applicant came to the Church again, they should tell them, “you are not welcome on the property. Please leave now or we will call 911”.
The following day
130The applicant testified that, the next day, two police officers came to her door saying they had just come from Fr. Alex’s home. They said that the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis were banned from the Church and the community centre. They did not take any information from the applicant, or get any evidence regarding her side of the story. The officers said that the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis went to the Church, and Fr. Alex was concerned for his safety. The officers said that they were banning them from trespassing on the property, and that they would receive a letter to that effect. The applicant testified that she respected that order.
131Mr. Mitritsakis confirmed that, the day after, two police officers came to the applicant’s home. They said that they had just come from Fr. Alex’s home and that they were banned from going to the Church, and that if they stepped on the property of the Community, they would be arrested. They never went to the Church again after that.
132Fr. Alex’s evidence is that the police constable he had spoken to on October 26, 2012, arranged to have a police officer attend at his house to take a statement from him. Fr. Alex told the police officer about the incidents since October 18, 2011, and the police officer’s report accurately reflects what he told him on that day. The police officer advised him that the Community should prepare a letter to give to the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis if they showed up again, stating that they were not welcome on the property, and that if they did not leave, the Community would call 911.
133Ms. Reklitis’s evidence is that, on October 27, 2012, Fr. Alex called her and said that a police officer was at his house and was taking his statement. The officer then spoke with her and advised that the Community should prepare a letter to give to the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis in case they showed up again, stating that they were not welcome on the property and that if they did not leave, the Community would call 911. Two letters were prepared, but they were never given to the applicant or Mr. Mitritsakis.
134Ms. Reklitis testified that the threats and the volatile behavior that she witnessed with her eyes and ears, more than once, have made her nervous. She testified that, since these incidents, she locks the doors to the narthex, which she never did before.
135Mr. Karakasis’s evidence is that he spoke to the Board, and, after a discussion with Fr. Alex, they decided to request a letter from the Community’s legal counsel advising the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis that they we no longer welcome on Community property. The GM arranged for the letter.
136A letter dated November 27, 2012, and addressed to the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis, from counsel for the HCO, states, in part, as follows:
On November 15, 2012, the Ottawa Police Service provided the Community with copies of the General Occurrence Information form and Investigation Action Report prepared by the Constable who met with you following your attendance at the Church premises… on the morning of October 26, 2012.
The Police Report documents an abusive call made by Ms. Caloca to Church Secretary, Penny Reklitis on October 24, 2012 and threatening comments about [Fr. Alex] made by Mr. Mitritsakis after the Church service on October 26, 2012.
The General Occurrence form indicates that the Constable issued a Trespass Warning, prohibiting you from attending at the Church property and from contacting [Fr. Alex] and Ms. Reklitis.
This letter constitutes formal notice to you pursuant to the Ontario Trespass to Property Act that you are prohibited from entering upon the premises owned by the [HCO]… and are to refrain from further trespassing on those premises…
[Fr. Alex] and Ms. Reklitis have felt harassed and intimidated by your threatening oral and e-mail communications over the past months. Your contact with them must cease. …
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
Relevant Code provisions
137Sections 1 and 9 of the Code provide as follows:
Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of… marital status.
No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part.
138In addition, “marital status” is defined in s. 10(1) of the Code as:
… the status of being married, single, widowed, divorced or separated and includes the status of living with a person in a conjugal relationship outside marriage.
Assessment of credibility
139To the extent that issues addressed in this Decision turn on my assessment of the credibility of the parties and the witnesses, I am guided by the principles set out by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Faryna v. Chorny, 1951 CanLII 252 (BC CA), [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354, at paras. 356-357:
… 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.
140I am also guided by factors considered by the Tribunal in Cugliari v. Clubine and Brunet, 2006 HRTO 7 at para. 26: the motives of the witnesses; the relationship of the witnesses to the parties; the internal consistency of their evidence; inconsistencies and contradictions in relation to other witnesses’ evidence; and, observations as to the manner in which the witnesses gave their evidence.
141I am also mindful of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s comments in R. v. Morrissey, (1995), 1995 CanLII 3498 (ON CA), 97 C.C.C. (3d) 193 at p. 205:
Testimonial evidence can raise veracity and accuracy concerns. The former relate to the witness's sincerity, that is his or her willingness to speak the truth as the witness believes it to be. The latter concerns relate to the actual accuracy of the witness's testimony. The accuracy of a witness's testimony involves considerations of the witness's ability to accurately observe, recall and recount the events in issue. When one is concerned with a witness's veracity, one speaks of the witness's credibility. When one is concerned with the accuracy of a witness's testimony, one speaks of the reliability of that testimony. Obviously a witness whose evidence on a point is not credible cannot give reliable evidence on that point. The evidence of a credible, that is honest witness, may, however, still be unreliable.
Was the applicant subjected to discrimination on the basis of marital status, contrary to the Code?
The parties’ submissions
142The applicant submits that the Code broadly defines marital status and that it includes the status of living with a person in a conjugal relationship outside marriage. She submits that non-married partners are disadvantaged. See Miron v. Trudel, 1995 CanLII 97 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418. She also submits that the ground of marital status encompasses not only the status of being in a relationship, but differential treatment that flows from the particular identify of an applicant’s spouse. See Chan v. Match Sports International, 2010 HRTO 459 at para. 19, citing B. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 2002 SCC 66, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 403.
143The applicant’s position is that, but for her decision to commence a relationship with Mr. Mitritsakis, she would not have been treated differently, and banned from the Church. She submits that the treatment she received resulted directly from the change in her marital status from married to separated, and immediately being in a relationship with another man. She also submits that Mr. Mitritsakis was targeted and assumed to be a bad person. He was removed from the Church, and she was banned with him.
144The applicant submits that the Greek Festival in 2011 was a “triggering point” for Fr. Alex’s discriminatory conduct towards the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis. She submits that Fr. Alex assumed that Mr. Mitritsakis acted aggressively at the Festival, despite not witnessing an incident. Fr. Alex did not give Mr. Mitritsakis the benefit of the doubt. He assumed that Mr. Mitritsakis is the kind of person who would have committed the alleged aggressive act, without speaking to him to see what transpired. The applicant submits that it was unreasonable for Fr. Alex to make such an assumption. The applicant also submits that no one who is alleged to have complained about Mr. Mitritsakis at the Festival was called as a witness.
145The applicant submits that Fr. Alex’s negative assumptions about Mr. Mitritsakis were at the heart of Fr. Alex’s decision to share unsubstantiated information about Mr. Mitritsakis with her ex-husband. She submits that Fr. Alex put her at a disadvantage by sharing allegations of aggressive conduct by Mr. Mitritsakis with her ex-husband, which was critical for her ex-husband in his custody battle with her. She submits that her ex-husband did, in fact, rely on the information provided to him by Fr. Alex.
146The applicant also submits that all of the following incidents originated with the earlier incidents referred to above, and Fr. Alex’s assumptions about the applicant’s new partner, Mr. Mitritsakis: Fr. Alex asking her and Mr. Mitritsakis to leave the Church when they met with him; the failed attempt to hold an event at the Church for the 3-year anniversary of the passing of her father; Mr. Karakasis and the VP attending the Church when the applicant attended with Mr. Mitritsakis and her son; and, their ultimate removal from the Church.
147The respondents submit that the definition of marital status in the Code includes the status of living with a person in a conjugal relationship outside marriage. They submit that marital status includes common law relationships, but it does not extend to those who are not living together, such as boyfriends and girlfriends. While the applicant describes Mr. Mitritsakis as her “partner”, she testified that she does not live with Mr. Mitritsakis. She lives in Ottawa and he lives in Gatineau. The respondents submit that the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis started seeing each other in the summer of 2011, and that he was her new boyfriend, not a spouse. They submit that the identity of one’s boyfriend does not garner the protection of the Code, and that there is no evidence that would bring their relationship under the definition of marital status within the meaning of the Code. They also submit that the applicant was not subjected to discrimination because she was separated from her husband.
148The respondents submit that, in any event, the present case is not like the B. case referred to above. In that case, the sole reason the complainant lost his job was because of his wife’s behaviour. Assumptions were made about the complainant because of what his wife said and did, and it was premature to dismiss him. The respondents submit that, in the present case, the trespass order concerning the applicant was not premature, and was based on the applicant’s own actions and comments. They also submit that the applicant has not asserted that an assumption was made about her based on what Mr. Mitritsakis did.
149The respondents submit that they have provided a reasonable and credible explanation for their actions, and that the applicant’s marital status was not a factor in any of their actions.
150The applicant submitted in reply that the definition of marital status in the Code includes the status of being separated. The applicant also submits that there is no question that she and Mr. Mitritsakis are “seeing” each other. Although they are not living together, their relationship is very much like a common law relationship. The applicant submitted that there are “cultural things” that the Tribunal may need to take note of, and that there are cultural expectations upon the applicant and her partner. The applicant submitted that the status of her relationship cannot be looked at in a formalistic and strict manner, as suggested by the respondents. She submits that her relationship is a “common law-like” relationship.
Findings
151Under s. 1 of the Code, every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of a number of grounds, including marital status. The applicant bears the legal onus of establishing discrimination on a balance of probabilities. To successfully establish discrimination, an applicant must prove that it is more probable than not that discrimination occurred. See Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 ONCA 396 at para. 83, and Ontario (Disability Support Program) v. Tranchemontagne, 2010 ONCA 593 at para. 109. In Tranchemontagne, at para. 74, the Court of Appeal held that the test for establishing discrimination under the Code is consistently expressed in the jurisprudence as requiring a distinction based on a prohibited ground that creates a disadvantage. The case law is clear that a protected ground need only be one of the factors involved for there to be a violation of the Code.
152For the reasons that follow, based on all of the evidence, I find that the applicant has not established that she was subjected to discrimination by the respondents on the basis of marital status, including because of the particular identify of her new partner, Mr. Mitritsakis. In the circumstances, I need not determine whether the applicant’s relationship with Mr. Mitritsakis is within the definition of marital status in the Code, for the purposes of determining if the applicant was subjected to discrimination because of the particular identity of Mr. Mitritsakis. I also need not determine whether all of the applicant’s allegations concerning the respondents’ actions are with respect to services, goods, and facilities within the meaning of the Code.
The Greek Festival – August 2011
153The applicant essentially argues that the Greek Festival in 2011 was the starting point for Fr. Alex’s discriminatory conduct towards the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis. She submits that it was unreasonable for Fr. Alex to assume that Mr. Mitritsakis acted aggressively at the Festival.
154Fr. Alex’s evidence, as set out in his witness statement, was that a group of female volunteers at the Festival said that a man had been rude and aggressive with them as he ordered desserts from them, and he later realized that the man they complained about was the applicant’s new friend. At the hearing, Fr. Alex testified that a couple of ladies behind the dessert booth said that a customer was rude and loud and they pointed to Mr. Mitritsakis. He also testified that he assumed it was true, and that he does not think that people would complain for no reason, or lie to the priest “just for the heck of it”. He also explained that it was not anything serious, and that he did not think there was any need to find out anything further.
155The applicant testified that she could see Mr. Mitritsakis when he went to get dessert, but she could not hear anything that was said. She also acknowledged that she does not know what anybody might have said to Fr. Alex about Mr. Mitritsakis.
156Mr. Mitritsakis gave evidence concerning his interactions at the dessert counter during the Festival. He testified that he was not upset with anyone, nor was anyone upset with him.
157While it is possible that Mr. Mitritsakis was misunderstood when he went to get dessert at the Festival, I have no reason to doubt Fr. Alex’s evidence that he received a complaint that he believed to be about Mr. Mitritsakis. I note that the respondents’ Response to the Application, and Fr. Alex’s witness statement, state that a “group” of female volunteers complained to Fr. Alex about Mr. Mitritsakis. At the hearing, Fr. Alex testified that a “couple” and “two” women complained to him about Mr. Mitritsakis.
158The respondent’s Response to the Application, and Fr. Alex’s witness statement, also state that Fr. Alex told the applicant’s ex-husband that “some” parishioners complained about Mr. Mitritsakis’s abruptness at the Festival. At the hearing, Fr. Alex testified that he told the applicant’s ex-husband that the only thing he knew about Mr. Mitritsakis was that two ladies complained to him that Mr. Mitritsakis was rude and loud at the Festival.
159The applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis testified that when they met with Fr. Alex on October 18, 2011, he said that four women had complained to him about Mr. Mitritsakis. Fr. Alex was not specifically asked at the hearing what he said, if anything, when they met on October 18, 2011, in terms of the number of people who complained to him about Mr. Mitritsakis at the Festival. I also note that an email dated October 5, 2011, from the applicant’s ex-husband to the applicant states that Fr. Alex told him that “one of the ladies selling coffee” at the Festival wanted to call security because Mr. Mitritsakis had been so rude. Fr. Alex denied saying anything about security being called when he spoke to the applicant’s ex-husband. As set out above, his evidence was that he told the women who complained to him that if they experienced any further rudeness, they should seek assistance from the Festival security team. It is quite possible, in light of the applicant’s ex-husband’s email, that Fr. Alex did mention something about “security” when he spoke to him, but that he does not recall. It is also possible that the applicant’s ex-husband embellished what he was told by Fr. Alex in the email. In my view, however, nothing turns on this minor discrepancy in the evidence, or on Fr. Alex’s characterizations of the number of women volunteering at the Festival who complained to him about Mr. Mitritsakis. I note that Mr. Mitritsakis testified that, at one point, when he was getting dessert at the Festival, there were four or five women volunteering at the dessert counter, and the respondents’ Response and Fr. Alex’s witness statement refer to a “group” of female volunteers complaining.
160I also note that the parties disagree as to whether Mr. Mitritsakis was introduced to Fr. Alex at the Festival. The applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis testified that Mr. Mitritsakis was introduced to Fr. Alex, whereas Fr. Alex testified that only his wife met Mr. Mitritsakis at the Festival. It is possible that Mr. Mitritsakis was introduced to Fr. Alex at the Festival, but that Fr. Alex does not recall. Again, in my view, nothing turns on this discrepancy in the evidence.
161Having considered all of the evidence, I have no reason to doubt Fr. Alex’s evidence that he received a complaint about Mr. Mitritsakis being rude, and aggressive or loud, at the Festival, and that he assumed it was true. As I understand it, the applicant argues that Fr. Alex’s assumption that what he was told about Mr. Mitritsakis’s behaviour at the Festival was true is discriminatory. The applicant, however, has not pointed to any evidence, nor do I see any evidence, that would support that rather bald assertion. I certainly do not see how Fr. Alex’s assumptions about Mr. Mitritsakis’s behaviour at the Festival, upon receiving a complaint that he understood to be about Mr. Mitritsakis, could be discriminatory as against the applicant. It is also possible that Fr. Alex misunderstood who was being complained about; however, that would also not make his assumption that Mr. Mitritsakis acted inappropriately at the Festival discriminatory.
162The applicant also argues that Fr. Alex’s decision to share unsubstantiated information about Mr. Mitritsakis with the applicant’s ex-husband was discriminatory, and that Fr. Alex put her at a disadvantage in doing so. Fr. Alex’s evidence was that, when the applicant’s ex-husband asked him if he knew or met Mr. Mitritsakis, he told him that he never met Mr. Mitritsakis, but that he received a complaint about him at the Festival. His evidence was that the call soon ended, because that is all he knew about Mr. Mitritsakis. Fr. Alex testified that he did not have anything against anyone, and that he did not know that there was a custody issue, but that the applicant’s ex-husband told him that his son was afraid of Mr. Mitritsakis.
163Having considered all of the evidence, I am not able to draw an inference, on a balance of probabilities, that Fr. Alex sharing with the applicant’s ex-husband that he received a complaint at the Festival about Mr. Mitritsakis being abrupt, or rude and loud, was discriminatory. The applicant’s ex-husband called Fr. Alex and asked him about Mr. Mitritsakis, and Fr. Alex told him what he knew about Mr. Mitritsakis. I do not find that this amounted to discrimination because of the applicant’s marital status, as a separated person, or as a separated person with a new partner. While this may have given rise to some unfortunate circumstances for the applicant, the Tribunal does not have the power to deal with allegations of unfairness. It is also not entirely clear to me that this allegation is with respect to services within the meaning of the Code; however, as indicated above, I need not determine this issue in light of my findings based on the evidence.
164With respect to the respondents’ attitude towards Community members who are separated, Fr. Alex’s evidence is that the Church recognizes that marriages can break down, and that there is no stigma attached to being separated from one’s spouse. There are also many parishioners at the Church who are divorced, and they can remarry in the Church. Fr. Alex has performed hundreds of such marriages. The Church also welcomes common law spouses, and Fr. Alex’s position is that the applicant is free to date, co-habitate or marry whomever she wishes.
165Mr. Karakasis’s evidence is also that the Church recognizes that marriages can break down, and that there is no stigma attached to being separated from one’s spouse. His evidence is that the number of divorced families that are members of the HCO would be consistent with the population in general.
166Ms. Reklitis testified that many people in their community are separated, seeing others, and living with people, and that it has no bearing in the practices of their parish. In cross-examination, she confirmed that she knows separated individuals who are going through divorce proceedings, who come to the Church, and who have immediately started other relationships and introduced the person to the community.
167In cross-examination, the applicant agreed that, in all of her years going to the Church, divorced people, and people living in common law relationships, attend mass. She also agreed that divorced people can get married again by Fr. Alex.
168In my view, the evidence simply does not support the applicant’s assertion that Fr. Alex sharing with her ex-husband that he received a complaint about Mr. Mitritsakis at the Festival amounts to discrimination on the basis of marital status. I also do not find that Fr. Alex telling the applicant’s ex-husband that he received a complaint about Mr. Mitritsakis amounts to discrimination against the applicant because of the particular identify of her new partner, Mr. Mitritsakis. In sharing this information when the applicant’s ex-husband asked him about Mr. Mitritsakis, Fr. Alex was in no way attributing Mr. Mitritsakis’s behaviour to the applicant, or making stereotypical or premature assumptions about the applicant, because of Mr. Mitritsakis. See B. at paras. 60 and 61. He was simply conveying what little he knew about Mr. Mitritsakis in answer to a question.
Phone call to Ms. Reklitis
169The parties and witnesses gave considerable evidence about a telephone call that the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis made to Ms. Reklitis while they were driving on the Queensway. In my view, the evidence concerning this incident is of little assistance in determining whether or not the applicant was subjected to discrimination.
170The applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis testified that they asked Ms. Reklitis for copies of Mr. Mitritsakis’s children’s baptism certificates, although I note that the applicant initially testified that she asked if Ms. Reklitis could certify that Mr. Mitritsakis was in Canada on a particular date. Ms. Reklitis, on the other hand, was certain that Mr. Mitritsakis was asking that Fr. Alex certify that he lived in Canada. She also testified that Mr. Mitritsakis said that Fr. Alex was a bad person and a liar.
171Although Ms. Reklitis testified that she could hear Mr. Mitritsakis clearly on the phone, and that there was no possibility of a misunderstanding, it appears that there very well may have been a misunderstanding. The applicant testified that they were driving on the Queensway with the windows down, and the wind was blowing, so the conversation was hard to understand. She also testified that voices were raised a little because of the wind, and because Mr. Mitritsakis has a hearing problem.
172Mr. Mitritsakis testified that Ms. Reklitis did not understand him, and that he hung up as he could not get through to her as to what he needed. He also testified that he was frustrated, that he could not hear what Mr. Reklitis was saying, and that he does not think she could hear what he was saying. He denied calling Fr. Alex a bad person.
173I find that it is more likely than not that Ms. Reklitis understood that Mr. Mitritsakis was asking that Fr. Alex certify that he lived in Canada. She acknowledged that the Church keeps baptism records. It does not make sense that Ms. Reklitis would refer Mr. Mitritsakis to the Greek embassy, as both Mr. Reklitis and Mr. Mitritsakis testified she did, if she understood him to be asking for copies of baptism certificates which the Church has.
174In my view, whether or not there was a misunderstanding, and whether or not Mr. Mitritsakis called Fr. Alex a bad person and a liar on the telephone call, are of little assistance in determining whether or not the applicant was subjected to discrimination. What is of some relevance, however, is Mr. Karakasis’s evidence that, around mid-October 2011, Ms. Reklitis told him that she received a phone call from the applicant asking Fr. Alex to sign paperwork attesting to knowing Mr. Mitritsakis when, in fact, he did not know him. Mr. Karakasis’s evidence is that he was very concerned about the request for this deception, and that he spoke about this, as well as the incident when the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis met with Fr. Alex on October 18, 2011, with the Executive Committee of the HCO Board. I have no reason to doubt Mr. Karakasis’s evidence concerning what Ms. Reklitis told him, and what he told the Executive Committee of the Board.
Meeting with Fr. Alex – October 18, 2011
175The parties and witnesses also gave considerable evidence about an incident on October 18, 2011, when the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis met with Fr. Alex at the Church. There are a number of discrepancies in the evidence that, in my view, are of little assistance in determining if the applicant was subjected to discrimination, such as: whether or not the applicant told Mr. Reklitis that Mr. Mitritsakis would be accompanying her to the meeting with Fr. Alex; whether or not the door to Fr. Alex’s office was closed when they met; and, whether or not the applicant hugged and kissed Fr. Alex at the beginning of the meeting.
176What is clear from the evidence is that a confrontation occurred, and Fr. Alex told the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis to leave, and directed Ms. Reklitis to call the police, prior to the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis leaving.
177The applicant testified that they were trying to clear up what happened at the Greek Festival, and what happened regarding the email exchanges between the applicant and her ex-husband. The applicant brought the email in question to the meeting with Fr. Alex.
178The applicant testified that Mr. Mitritsakis questioned how Fr. Alex could make allegations about someone he does not know, and Fr. Alex said it was all hearsay and he should not believe rumours. She testified that Fr. Alex said that four women came forward and complained, and that Mr. Mitritsakis responded that the only person that served him was Fr. Alex’s wife. Fr. Alex then got up and said, “get out of my church”, and, “Penny, call the cops.” He did not want to look at the email.
179The applicant testified that, when asked to leave, they complied. She was just shocked, and did not know what to say. She had not heard “that” from a priest before. She testified that Mr. Mitritsakis said, in Greek, “what am I going to say, you are a bad person”, and they proceeded to leave.
180In cross-examination, the applicant testified that Mr. Mitritsakis raised his voice during the meeting with Fr. Alex, but not in an angry way, and that he remained calm. She also testified that on the way out of the Church Mr. Mitritsakis said to Fr. Alex, “what can I say, you are a dirty person.” She denied that Mr. Mitritsakis said to Fr. Alex, “go to hell you masturbator”. She also denied that Mr. Mitritsakis said to Fr. Alex, “where you gonna go, I’m gonna fix you”.
181The applicant also denied saying, “what kind of priest are you to call the police on people?”, that Fr. Alex was “no good”, and that he was “not even a priest”.
182Mr. Mitritsakis testified that the applicant sat down in Fr. Alex’s office and he asked Fr. Alex if he knew him. Fr. Alex said, “no, I don’t know you.” He then asked Fr. Alex how he could express an opinion about a person he does not know, and Fr. Alex said that he did not express an opinion. He said to Fr. Alex that Fr. Alex made claims about him. Fr. Alex said that it was rumours and that people talk. Mr. Mitritsakis questioned Fr. Alex further and Fr. Alex said it was hearsay. Mr. Mitritsakis then referred to the claims being in writing, and asked Fr. Alex what he told the applicant’s husband about him, or what he knew about him. Mr. Mitritsakis testified that he did not show Fr. Alex the email from the applicant’s husband, but that the applicant had the email.
183Mr. Mitritsakis testified that the applicant started to cry so he said, “Voula, let’s go”. Fr. Alex then said that, at the Greek Festival, four ladies in different locations called him to call security to throw Mr. Mitritsakis out. Mr. Mitritsakis asked Fr. Alex which four ladies, and said that the only female he spoke to that he did not know was Fr. Alex’s wife. Fr. Alex then started calling to Ms. Reklitis, “Penny, call the police, Penny, call the police”. He also testified that Fr. Alex yelled, “get out my church, get out of my church.” At the hearing, Mr. Mitritsakis testified that “it is nobody’s church”. He also testified that he said to Fr. Alex that he is “a filthy person”. He denied saying anything else.
184In cross-examination, Mr. Mitritsakis testified that he called Fr. Alex “filthy” or “tainted”. He also told Fr. Alex that he was lying. He denied calling Fr. Alex a “masturbator”, or saying, “where you gonna go, I’m gonna fix you”. He also testified that the applicant said absolutely nothing.
185Fr. Alex’s evidence is that, when Mr. Mitritsakis entered his office, he immediately started to accuse him of having said unjust things about him to the applicant’s ex-husband. Mr. Mitritsakis threw down what appeared to be an email message on his desk, but then grabbed it out of Fr. Alex’s hands before he had a chance to read it, while yelling that he was a “paleanthropos”, which translates as “a rotten person”, and a liar. Fr. Alex testified that, when Mr. Mitritsakis began calling him names, he said, “get out of my office”.
186Mr. Mitritsakis and the applicant left his office and entered the narthex, and Mr. Mitritsakis stated, “na pas sto diavolo vre malaka”, which translates as “go to hell, you masturbator”. Fr. Alex heard Ms. Reklitis’s cousin telling Mr. Mitritsakis to be ashamed of himself for his language and behaviour. Mr. Mitritsakis yelled out, “pou that pas, tha seftiaxo”, which translates as “where you gonna go, I’m gonna fix you”. At that point, Fr. Alex instructed Ms. Reklitis to call the police.
187Fr. Alex’s evidence is that the applicant’s response to his instructions to call the police was, “what kind of a priest are you to call the police on people”. She added that he was no good and that he was not even a priest. He testified that the applicant said to him, “you are not even baptized”.
188Ms. Reklitis’s evidence is that she was chatting with her cousin and was not listening to the conversation in Fr. Alex’s office. Within a minute, she heard raised voices, and she heard Mr. Mitritsakis yelling obscenities at Fr. Alex in Greek. He yelled that Fr. Alex was a “paleanthropos”, which translates as “a rotten person”, a “liar” and “scum”. Fr. Alex said, “you’re calling me what? In a church? In my parish”, or words to that effect, and he told Mr. Mitritsakis and the applicant to leave immediately.
189Her evidence is that Mr. Mitritsakis left the office, and entered the narthex, and yelled at Fr. Alex, “na pas sto diavolo vre malaka”, which translates as “go to hell, you masturbator”. Ms. Reklitis was dumbfounded and shaken. She and her cousin both told Mr. Mitritsakis that he should be ashamed of himself for talking that way to a priest in a church, and they said, “shame on you”. Mr. Mitritsakis responded with a threat to Fr. Alex, “pou iha pas, tha se ftiaxo”, which translates as “where you gonna go, I’m gonna fix you”.
190Ms. Reklitis’s evidence is that Fr. Alex instructed her to call the police, and said that he would not be threatened in his own church. The applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis then headed for the door. The applicant made no effort to interfere or stop her friend’s disrespectful and vulgar comments. Instead, she chastised Fr. Alex by asking, “what kind of priest are you to call the police on people?” She added that Fr. Alex was “no good” and he was “not even a priest”.
191There does not appear to be any dispute that Fr. Alex told the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis to “get out”, and that he instructed Ms. Reklitis to call the police. With respect to the sequence of events, and what was said, I prefer the evidence of Fr. Alex and Ms. Reklitis as compared to the evidence of the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis.
192The applicant testified that Fr. Alex told them to “get out”, and instructed Mr. Reklitis to call the police, in response to Mr. Mitritsakis saying that the only person who served him at the Greek Festival was Fr. Alex’s wife. Mr. Mitritsakis testified that he said to Fr. Alex that the only person he spoke to that he did not know was Fr. Alex’s wife. I find it difficult to accept, in particular, that Fr. Alex would instruct Ms. Reklitis to call the police because Mr. Mitritsakis mentioned his wife. I note that, in cross-examination, Fr. Alex testified that Mr. Mitritsakis did not mention anything about his wife during the meeting. He testified that his wife may have served Mr. Mitritsakis dessert, but he does not know.
193In my view, the evidence of Fr. Alex and Ms. Reklitis makes more sense. Mr. Mitritsakis admits that he called Fr. Alex “filthy” or “tainted”, and told him that he was lying. The applicant testified that Mr. Mitritsakis called Fr. Alex a “bad person” or a “dirty person”, after they were asked to leave. In my view, it makes more sense that Fr. Alex would tell the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis to “get out” after Mr. Mitritsakis called him an inappropriate name, as Fr. Alex and Ms. Reklitis testified. I note that Ms. Reklitis testified, in cross-examination, that Fr. Alex told them to leave after she heard Mr. Mitritsakis yelling obscenities.
194While the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis deny that Mr. Mitritsakis said to Fr. Alex, “go to hell, you masturbator”, in Greek, the applicant recalled that Ms. Reklitis and her cousin both gasped and said, “shame on you” at one point. I prefer the evidence of Ms. Reklitis and Fr. Alex that this was in response to Mr. Mitritsakis saying to Fr. Alex, “go to hell, you masturbator”. I have no reason to believe that Fr. Alex and Ms. Reklitis would fabricate that Mr. Mitritsakis said this to Fr. Alex, and find that he did say this, in addition to calling Fr. Alex “filthy” or “tainted”, and telling him that he was lying.
195I note that a police report dated October 27, 2012, a little over a year later, states that Mr. Mitritsakis yelled multiple vulgarities at Fr. Alex, including calling him a “Faggot, Crazy, Insane, and no good” on October 18, 2011. The report is based on information provided to the police by both Fr. Alex and Ms. Reklitis. When asked about the names in the police report that Mr. Mitritsakis called him in Greek, Fr. Alex testified that the names Mr. Mitritsakis called him can translate in many ways from Greek, and the word “masturbator” depends on how it is said, and in what context. Whether or not the translation is accurate, I have no reason to doubt that Mr. Mitritsakis called Fr. Alex a derogatory name that caused both Ms. Reklitis and her cousin to say, “shame on you”.
196I also prefer the evidence of Ms. Reklitis and Fr. Alex that Fr. Alex asked Ms. Reklitis to call the police, after Mr. Mitritsakis yelled at Fr. Alex, in Greek, “where you gonna go, I’m gonna fix you”. In cross-examination, Fr. Alex testified that he felt threatened, and Ms. Reklitis testified that Mr. Mitritsakis made this threat, not in Fr. Alex’s office, but after he left the office and walked past her. She explained it was not until after Mr. Mitritsakis threatened Fr. Alex that he asked her to call the police. She picked up the phone but did not dial, because the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis left.
197In my view, I find it more likely than not that Mr. Mitritsakis yelled at Fr. Alex, “where you gonna go, I’m gonna fix you”. There is no dispute that Fr. Alex instructed Ms. Reklitis to call the police. In my view, it makes more sense that he would do so after something was said to him that caused him to feel threatened.
198I also accept the evidence of Fr. Alex and Ms. Reklitis that the applicant’s response to Fr. Alex’s instructions to call the police was, “what kind of a priest are you to call the police on people”, and that she added that he was “no good”, and that he was “not even a priest”. In my view, these statements attributed to the applicant are consistent with the tone of the applicant’s May 17, 2012 email to Ms. Reklitis. I have no reason to doubt the evidence of Fr. Alex and Ms. Reklitis that the applicant said these things on October 18, 2011, and I find that she did.
199With respect to Fr. Alex’s additional evidence that the applicant said to him, “you are not even baptized”, I note that this is not included in either the Response to the Application or Fr. Alex’s witness statement. It may be that Fr. Alex heard this elsewhere as the Response sets out that the applicant stated in her May 17, 2012 email to Ms. Reklitis that Fr. Alex is not baptized as Orthodox.
200Having carefully considered the evidence, I also find that the applicant attended the Church with Mr. Mitritsakis on October 18, 2011, in order to confront Fr. Alex, together, because of email correspondence from the applicant’s ex-husband stating that Fr. Alex had talked to him about Mr. Mitritsakis. There is also no evidence that the applicant tried to interfere in any way with Mr. Mitritsakis’s inappropriate comments to Fr. Alex. Rather, it appears that the applicant also chastised Fr. Alex with her own inappropriate comments.
The applicant’s May 17, 2012 email and October 24, 2012 telephone call to Ms. Reklitis
201In the Application, the applicant alleges that she called Ms. Reklitis on October 24, 2012, and asked why she had been taken off the mailing list, and Ms. Reklitis responded by saying, “well Voula, the person you’re dating…” At the hearing, the applicant testified that Ms. Reklitis said this to her, and that she responded, “what does the person I’m dating have anything to do with me being deleted from the list”. She testified that Ms. Reklitis did not say anything.
202Ms. Reklitis’s evidence is that, when the applicant called her on October 24, 2012 about not receiving email, she reminded the applicant about her email and statement that she and Mr. Mitritsakis had been welcomed into another Orthodox church. The applicant soon became upset and started raising her voice. Ms. Reklitis also explained to the applicant that the tone of her email about Fr. Alex was unacceptable and rude.
203Ms. Reklitis also testified that she felt that the applicant’s May 17, 2012 email did not warrant a reply, and that it would only make matters worse. She testified that she decided to remove the applicant from the Community’s email list, as she felt that any further correspondence to the applicant would only make matters worse. Moreover, the applicant had stated that she found another church.
204In her witness statement, Ms. Reklitis states that, if she did refer to Mr. Mitritsakis during this conversation, it would have been in connection with his behavior at the meeting with Fr. Alex in October 2011. In cross-examination, however, she clearly denied bringing up what happened the year prior and testified that she did not mention the prior incident. She also strongly denied saying, “well Voula, the person you’re dating…”, and testified that she would never say that to somebody, and that she did not mention Mr. Mitritsakis.
205In cross-examination, she also testified that she did not know that the applicant was seeing or dating Mr. Mitritsakis. She queried how she could have said because of “the person you’re dating..”, as alleged, when the applicant called her on October 24, 2012, as the applicant had only ever introduced Mr. Mitritsakis as a “family friend”.
206Ms. Reklitis also testified that she realized when the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis came to the Church in October 2011 that they were dating or together, but that she had not seen them for a year after that, and did not know the nature of their relationship. She explained further that she assumed that they were together, but that she did not know that, as a fact, when the applicant called her the following year. She explained that there had been no interaction between them, other than the email in May 2012, wherein she mentioned Mr. Mitritsakis. She ultimately testified that she would never say that to someone, and, referring to logic, testified that she could not have said that because the applicant never said to her that she was dating Mr. Mitritsakis.
207While Ms. Reklitis denied saying, “well Voula, the person you are dating…”, or mentioning Mr. Mitritsakis, when she spoke to the applicant on October 24, 2012, both the Response to the Application and Ms. Reklitis’s witness statement state that, if she did refer to Mr. Mitritsakis during this conversation, it would have been in connection with his behavior at the Church in October 2011. I also understand Ms. Reklitis’s evidence to be that she could not have made the statement, “well Voula, the person you are dating…”, because the applicant never told her that she was dating Mr. Mitritsakis, and had only ever introduced him as a family friend. She also testified, however, that she realized the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis were dating, or together, when they came to the Church in October 2011, and that she assumed that they were together, but that she did not know that, as a fact, when the applicant called her the following year.
208Having carefully considered the evidence, I find that it is more likely than not that Ms. Reklitis did make reference to Mr. Mitritsakis when she spoke to the applicant on October 24, 2012, in light of his behavior at the Church in October 2011, but that she may not have used the word “dating”. Ms. Reklitis testified about her position as Office Administrator at the Church, and explained that she does not delve into personal information when dealing with parishioners. I find that it is unlikely that Mr. Reklitis referred to the applicant as “dating” Mr. Mitritsakis, if she had never been told that they were dating.
209In any event, it is clear from the evidence that Ms. Reklitis had ample reason to remove the applicant from the Community’s email list, based on the content of the applicant’s May 17, 2012 email to her, including the statement that she had started going to another Orthodox church, and following her own conduct at the Church on October 18, 2011.
210At the hearing, the applicant did not argue that her removal from the Community email list was discriminatory, nor did she argue that any reference that Mr. Reklitis made to Mr. Mitritsakis when the applicant and Ms. Reklitis spoke on October 24, 2012 was discriminatory, in and of itself. Having carefully considered the evidence, I find that both the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis engaged in inappropriate behavior, together, at the Church on October 18, 2011. In addition, the applicant’s May 17, 2012 email to Ms. Reklitis contains inappropriate comments, attributed to Mr. Mitritsakis. In my view, there is insufficient evidence to establish on a balance of probabilities that the applicant was subjected to discrimination when Ms. Reklitis removed her from the email list, or referred to Mr. Mitritsakis when they spoke on October 24, 2012, in light of the inappropriate behavior that they engaged in together.
211Ms. Reklitis’s evidence is that, when the applicant called her on October 24, 2012, the phone call began calmly, but the applicant soon became upset and started raising her voice. Ms. Reklitis could not recall precisely what the applicant said, because she was yelling so loudly. Ms. Reklitis’s evidence is also that Mr. Mitritsakis then came on the phone, also yelling, calling Fr. Alex names and threatening to “fix him”. She hung up with Mr. Mitritsakis still yelling at her.
212Ms. Reklitis testified that she was absolutely certain that Mr. Mitritsakis got on the phone during the October 24, 2012 telephone call with the applicant. She testified that you do not forget when someone yells and screams at you, and that the applicant was yelling, and there was no pause, and then Mr. Mitritsakis was yelling at her on the phone. She testified that she does not know if Mr. Mitritsakis heard what she said before she hung up the phone because he was yelling so loudly. She was shaken and upset, and she immediately alerted the HCO’s GM by email, and advised her to inform staff not to take any calls from either the applicant or Mr. Mitritsakis.
213The applicant, on the other hand, testified that Mr. Mitritsakis was not with her when she called Ms. Reklitis on October 24, 2012, and that he did not speak to her that day. Mr. Mitritsakis testified that he heard one side of a conversation when the applicant asked why she was removed from the Community list, but that he did not speak to Ms. Reklitis. In cross-examination, he testified that he never got on the phone, and that he could not have as he was on the second floor with a towel around him, and he does not walk in the house with a towel.
214I have some difficulty with Mr. Mitritsakis’s evidence that he heard one side of the conversation, but that he was, as I understand his evidence, on a different floor of the house. Ms. Reklitis was also very clear in her evidence as to what Mr. Mitritsakis said when he got on the phone, and testified that “you do not forget when someone yells and screams at you.” She also testified that she alerted the HCO’s GM, and advised her to inform staff not to take any calls from either the applicant or Mr. Mitritsakis. In all of the circumstances, I prefer the evidence of Ms. Reklitis and find that both the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis yelled at her on the phone that day.
Service for the feast of St. Demetrios – October 26, 2012
215The parties and witnesses gave considerable evidence about the events of Friday, October 26, 2012, when the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis attended a service at the Church with one of the applicant’s sons. There are a number of questions on which the parties disagree, concerning this day, that, in my view, are of little assistance in determining if the applicant was subjected to discrimination, such as: the reasons underlying why the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis attended the Church service that day; whether they sat in the very front pew, or three rows back; why they sat where they sat; and, where Mr. Karakasis and the HCO’s VP sat when they arrived at the Church.
216What is clear from the evidence is that there was a confrontation outside the Church, after the service, involving the applicant, Mr. Mitritsakis, Mr. Karakasis and the HCO’s VP.
217It appears from the respondents’ evidence that, when Fr. Alex saw the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis sitting in the Church, he telephoned Ms. Reklitis from behind the altar and told her that they were there, and that he was frightened and shaking. Ms. Reklitis assured Fr. Alex that she would get help, and she immediately advised the GM that Fr. Alex felt threatened. The GM said that she would call Mr. Karakasis and the VP, and Ms. Reklitis saw Mr. Karakasis and the VP arrive at the Church.
218The applicant testified that, after the service, she proceeded outside with Mr. Karakasis, and she introduced him to Mr. Mitritsakis. Shortly after, the VP came and introduced himself. The applicant explained that Mr. Mitritsakis was leaning against a wall, with her son, and Mr. Karakasis and the VP approached Mr. Mitritsakis and said that Fr. Alex is their employee, and that they were there to protect him. She testified that Mr. Mitritsakis’s space was invaded, and he said to them, “you step on my toes, I will step on your throat.” They were really close. There was no other conversation, and Mr. Mitritsakis said, “Voula, let’s go”, and they left.
219Mr. Mitritsakis testified that the VP made a step forward, and Mr. Mitritsakis said, “you step on my toes, I’ll step on your throat.” He testified that his back was against the wall, and he felt that he may have to defend himself. He said, “Voula, let’s go”.
220The applicant also testified that, at some point, she asked Mr. Karakasis if he was up to par with what happened at the Greek Festival in 2011, and that he said he knew exactly what happened. She also testified that she told Mr. Karakasis that she wanted to meet with Fr. Alex to plan a 3-year memorial service for her father.
221Mr. Karakasis’s evidence is that, after the service, when he was outside the Church with the applicant, Mr. Mitritsakis and the VP, the applicant started blaming Fr. Alex for his role in her son having been taken from her. She said that Mr. Karakasis should not entrust Fr. Alex with the spiritual leadership of the Community and she would tell him why. He was dumbfounded at her tone.
222Mr. Karakasis’s evidence is that the applicant kept talking about having her child taken away from her, that it was Fr. Alex’s fault, and that others should have it happen to know what it feels like. Mr. Mitritsakis then said that Fr. Alex should have his child taken away from him so that he could understand what it was like.
223In cross-examination, the applicant testified that she posed a rhetorical question to Mr. Karakasis, stating that Fr. Alex has three children, and “what if he was not able to see one of them”; however, she testified that it was not a threat in any way.
224Whether or not the applicant intended her comments to be threatening, I find that the applicant made inappropriate comments regarding Fr. Alex and his children that could be perceived as threatening in the circumstances.
225Mr. Karakasis’s evidence is that the applicant said that Fr. Alex had no right to be a priest in the church because he was “Albanian”. He took this to be a very bigoted statement. Mr. Karakasis testified that the tone of the conversation was that Fr. Alex was not qualified to be their leader because he was not even Greek.
226The applicant acknowledged that she might have made the “Albanian” comment to Mr. Karakasis that day, and testified that she regretted accusing Fr. Alex of being Albanian. She explained that “there is a big thing between Greeks and Albanians in Greece and there is that hatred”.
227In the circumstances, I find that the applicant made inappropriate comments to Mr. Karakasis regarding Fr. Alex’s background. These comments are consistent with other comments the applicant made on October 18, 2011, and in her May 17, 2012 email to Ms. Reklitis.
228Mr. Karakasis’s evidence is that the applicant also blamed Fr. Alex for telling her son that Mr. Mitritsakis was an evil person and a criminal. She said that Fr. Alex conspired with her ex-husband to tell members of the Community that Mr. Mitritsakis was a bad person in an effort to split them up as a couple.
229In cross-examination, the applicant testified that she might have said there was an email exchange between her and her ex-husband about what Fr. Alex had said, but she denied accusing Fr. Alex of: saying Mr. Mitritsakis is an evil person or a criminal; telling members of the community that Mr. Mitritsakis is a bad person; and, trying to split the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis up.
230Considering all of the evidence, including the apparent tone of the conversation outside the Church on October 26, 2012, and given that the applicant testified that she might have referred to an email exchange between her and her ex-husband about what Fr. Alex had said, I prefer the evidence of Mr. Karakasis. I find that it is more likely than not that the applicant said that Fr. Alex said that Mr. Mitritsakis was an evil person and a criminal; that Fr. Alex conspired with her ex-husband to tell members of the Community that Mr. Mitritsakis was a bad person; and, that Fr. Alex tried to split them up as a couple.
231When Mr. Karakasis raised the October 2011 incident, Mr. Mitritsakis denied having ever raised his voice in the Church, and said that he was not threatening anyone, and that if people did not step on his toes, he would not step on theirs. Then Mr. Mitritsakis said that if someone stepped on his neck, he would “cut their throat”. Mr. Karakasis did not perceive this as a specific threat, but threatening in general. He was highly taken aback by this statement and the threatening tone of the conversation. He felt that the conversation needed to end.
232Mr. Karakasis testified that when he was talking to Mr. Mitritsakis he was within two or three feet of him. It was a crowded area with people exiting the Church, so he needed to be reasonably close to hear. He testified that he did not threaten Mr. Mitritsakis, nor did he say that the priest is their employee, and that they were there to protect him. Rather, he was asked why he was protecting Fr. Alex. Mr. Karakasis testified that he did not recall the applicant or Mr. Mitritsakis asking about organizing a memorial for the applicant’s father’s passing, and confirmed in cross-examination that the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis did not ask him about setting up anything for the applicant’s father. He also explained that it is not something he really has a say in. In re-examination, he explained that the Church office is the proper “person” to talk to about arranging a service for the third anniversary of the applicant’s father’s death.
233In cross-examination, Mr. Mitritsakis testified that when he was asked what he wanted from the priest, he said that the applicant wanted to see him about the blessing on the anniversary of the applicant’s father’s death. He denied that it was possible that he said “cut your throat”, and testified that he said “step on your throat.”
234In cross-examination, Mr. Karakasis testified that the applicant never asked for anything, but the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis just wanted him and the VP to agree that Fr. Alex was a detriment, or be sympathetic to their position. He testified that Mr. Mitritsakis’s back may have been against a wall, and that, at some point, his was as well. He testified that Mr. Mitritsakis came closer to him and the VP. He also testified that he does not see how anything he did could be seen as threatening, but that Mr. Mitritsakis said, “if you don’t step on my toes, I won’t step on yours. But if you step on my neck, I will cut your throat”.
235The applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis admit that Mr. Mitritsakis said in the presence of Mr. Karakasis and the VP, “you step on my toes, I’ll step on your throat”, but deny that he said “cut your throat”. Whether or not he said “cut your throat”, in my view, the statement admitted to appears rather threatening. The applicant also testified that Mr. Mitritsakis was fairly calm the whole time. I note, however, that in her Application, the applicant described the exchange between Mr. Mitritsakis, Mr. Karakasis and the VP as heated. She also testified that Mr. Mitritsakis’s tone of voice might have been raised, but was not really heated as in anger.
236Mr. Karakasis’s evidence is that, during his discussion with the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis, he tried to listen in order to determine what they wanted to accomplish and how to resolve the issue. He told them what they were saying was inconsistent with how he had seen Fr. Alex do his job and interact with people. The applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis were unwilling to consider anything he said.
237Mr. Karakasis evidence is that he felt that the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis could be a threat to Fr. Alex or HCO staff, and collaterally to other parishioners or people using the facility. He found that the applicant wanted some form of retribution, specifically against Fr. Alex. In cross-examination, he explained that he did not perceive a threat at the point in time that they were in the parking lot, but that if they did not do something to Fr. Alex, like the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis wanted, the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis would “find a way”.
The following day
238It appears from the applicant’s evidence that, on October 27, 2012, two police officers came to the applicant’s home, and said that the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis were banned from the Church and the community centre. The applicant testified that the officers said that the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis had gone to the Church, and that Fr. Alex was concerned for his safety.
239The November 27, 2012 letter addressed to the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis refers to a Police Report documenting an abusive call made by the applicant to Ms. Reklitis on October 24, 2012, and threatening comments about Fr. Alex, made by Mr. Mitritsakis, after the Church service on October 26, 2012. The letter states that Fr. Alex and Ms. Reklitis have felt harassed and intimidated by their threatening oral and email communications over the past months.
240At the hearing, the applicant submitted that Fr. Alex’s credibility is seriously brought into question by the information he provided to the police on October 27, 2012. In particular, the applicant referred to the police report stating that, since the 2011 Greek Festival, Mr. Mitritsakis had “made multiple confrontations with” Fr. Alex. The report also states that, on one of those occasions, on October 18, 2011, Mr. Mitritsakis yelled multiple vulgarities at Fr. Alex in the Church, including calling him, in Greek, a “Faggot, Crazy, Insane, and no good”. The applicant submits that there were not “multiple confrontations”, and that the “masturbator” comment is not in the report, but other words are, which shows inconsistency.
241Fr. Alex testified that there are a couple of points in the police report that are not accurate, and that he did not see the report until it was sent a few days, or weeks, later. When asked about the reference to “multiple confrontations” in the report, Fr. Alex testified that the police may have put it in a strong context. In any event, Fr. Alex did not write the report, and I note that the report is based on information from both Fr. Alex and Ms. Reklitis. Also, as I have found, Mr. Mitritsakis was involved in confrontations at the Church on both October 18, 2011 and October 26, 2012. He also yelled negative comments about Fr. Alex when he got on the phone to Ms. Reklitis on October 24, 2012, and negative comments attributed to him were made about Fr. Alex in the applicant’s May 17, 2012 email to Ms. Reklitis.
242As set out above, with respect to the statement in the police report about the names Mr. Mitritsakis called Fr. Alex, in Greek, Fr. Alex testified that the names Mr. Mitritsakis called him can translate in many ways from Greek, and the word “masturbator” depends on how it is said, and in what context. As set out above, I am satisfied that Mr. Mitritsakis called Fr. Alex a derogatory name. In all of the circumstances, I do not find that Fr. Alex’s credibility is affected by any apparent discrepancies in the police report, which he did not author.
243At the hearing, the applicant also argued that it was discriminatory for Fr. Alex not to allow the applicant to hold a 3-year anniversary service for the passing of her father at the Church, and that he did not return the calls of the applicant and her brother. The applicant submits that Fr. Alex was simply not willing, at that point, to allow them back to the Church.
244When Fr. Alex was asked if Ms. Reklitis conveyed that the applicant’s family wanted to make arrangements for the 3-year anniversary of the passing of the applicant’s father, Fr. Alex testified that he was not willing to have that happen because of the “threat” that happened. Fr. Alex was asked this question in the context of other questions about the events of October 26, 2012. In the circumstances, I understand Fr. Alex’s evidence to be that he was not willing to have it happen, after the events of October 26, 2012 took place.
245When asked why he did not return their call, Fr. Alex testified that he believed the applicant’s brother called the day before October 26, 2012, that they do not return calls the next day, and that he did not return their call because of the events of October 26, 2012. He testified that, after October 26, 2012, and the police were called, he was not going to allow people who the police were called about to attend the Church.
246Ms. Reklitis’s evidence is that, on three occasions on October 24 and 25, 2012, the applicant’s brother called her about arranging a memorial service at the Church for the 3-year anniversary of their father’s death. The family had not asked for a memorial service for the second anniversary of his death. Neither the applicant’s brother, nor Ms. Reklitis, mentioned the applicant when they spoke. Ms. Reklitis said that she would have to get back to him once she checked on the dates, as there are many days when they are unable to hold memorials given conflicts with the Church calendar.
247There is no evidence before me that the applicant, herself, asked the respondent to arrange a service for the 3-year anniversary of her father’s passing, prior to October 26, 2012.
248Having considered all of the evidence, for the same reasons that I find the respondents’ banning of the applicant from the Church to be non-discriminatory, as set out below, I find that the respondents not arranging a service for the 3-year anniversary of the applicant’s father’s passing also does not amount to discrimination within the meaning of the Code. It appears from the evidence that the applicant’s brother had only just spoken to Ms. Reklitis about this on October 24 and 25, 2012, and she said that she had to check dates and get back to him. It appears more likely than not that the events of October 26, 2012, eclipsed any meaningful consideration of arranging a service for the passing of the applicant’s father.
249In my view, it is clear from the evidence that the applicant made inappropriate and arguably threatening comments concerning Fr. Alex, and attended the Church, together with Mr. Mitritsakis, on more than one occasion, when he made inappropriate and threatening comments. There is no evidence that the applicant discouraged Mr. Mitritsakis’s behavior in any way. Rather, it appears from the evidence that she acted in concert with Mr. Mitritsakis, and essentially condoned his inappropriate comments and behavior, while making inappropriate and arguably threatening comments of her own. Based on all of the evidence, I find that the applicant was banned from the Church based on her own behaviour that she engaged in, together with Mr. Mitritsakis, and that marital status was not a factor.
250Fr. Alex’s evidence is that the abusive and threatening conduct of the applicant and her partner, Mr. Mitritsakis, led to them being barred from the premises of the HCO. The applicant’s exclusion from the premises had nothing to do with the fact that she and her husband were no longer together, or whether or not he approved of her partner.
251Mr. Karakasis testified that the fact that the applicant was separated from her husband was not a factor at any time, nor was the fact that she was separated and dating someone else a factor. He testified that the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis were banned because of the cumulative set of circumstances, including the tone of voice, the statements made, the inability to find any “commonplace” for a resolution, and a concern that they could be provocative again in circumstances that the respondents could not manage. He testified that both the applicant and Mr. Mitritsakis were banned because they were “intertwined” in terms of their attitude, and it was impossible for him to separate their positions. He testified that it was not because they were dating, but because they said things independently.
252In cross-examination, Mr. Karakasis testified that, in 2011, it was Mr. Mitritsakis who was considered a threat, and not the applicant. He testified that in the parking lot in 2012, however, the applicant offered views of Fr. Alex’s ethnicity, and said that he should suffer and lose custody of his children the way she lost custody of hers. He testified that it was hard to separate the applicant’s expressions from Mr. Mitritsakis’s.
253I find that, in all of the circumstances, the applicant has not established that she was subjected to discrimination on the basis of marital status. I find that the applicant was not discriminated against based on her marital status, including as a separated person, or as a separated person with a new partner. I also do not find that she was subjected to discrimination on the basis of marital status, based on the identity of her new partner, Mr. Mitritsakis.
254For all of the above reasons, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 31st day of December, 2014.
“Signed by”
Brian Eyolfson
Vice-chair