HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Mohammed Bashi
Applicant
-and-
V.H. Fuels Inc. o/a Petro Canada
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Bashi v. V.H. Fuels Inc.
APPEARANCES
Mohammed Bashi, Applicant Self-represented
Petro Canada, Respondent Susan Metzler, Counsel
V.H. Fuels Inc., Respondent Eric Amodeo, Counsel
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of race and place of origin. The respondent operates a gas station. The applicant alleges that he bought a package of cigarettes at the gas station in October 2012. When he smoked them, he experienced unusual symptoms and when he researched the symptoms on the internet he concluded that the cigarettes had been poisoned and contained a strong anti-cancer medication and psychoactive drugs.
2On the basis of the information in the Application, it was not clear to the Tribunal how the applicant would be able to prove his allegations of discrimination. The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction on October 31, 2013 directing a summary hearing to be held by telephone conference call. The Application was sent to the respondent but a Response was not required. The summary hearing was held on April 16, 2014.
3At the summary hearing, the applicant indicted that he had kept some of the cigarettes that he bought from the gas station. He said that he took them to the police but the police refused to do anything. He indicated that he had also purchased other packs of cigarettes from other stores. He said that he felt that five of the packs had been poisoned. He said that he went to a doctor who did blood tests which were negative.
4The applicant indicated that his allegations about cigarette poisoning are part of a broader concern about surveillance that has been conducted on him for the past several years. The applicant does not know who is doing the surveillance but thinks that it has something to do with his race and place of origin.
5The applicant was asked how he would be able to show that the package of cigarettes that he purchased from the gas station had been poisoned he said that he would only tell what happened and what he experienced. He did not point to any other evidence that might be available to support his allegations.
6The purpose of a summary hearing is to obtain clarification about an applicant’s allegations and to determine if there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant will be able to successfully prove that he experienced discrimination in the way alleged.
7In this case, I conclude that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant could successfully prove that the cigarettes he purchased from the respondent were poisoned in the way he alleges. The Application is dismissed on that basis.
Dated at Toronto, this 24^th^ day of April, 2014.
“Signed By”
Brian Cook Vice-chair