Abdulle v. Old Navy Canada, 2014 HRTO 762

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sagal Abdulle

Applicant

-and-

Old Navy Canada, Wendy McRae and Aala Sakaji

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: May 28, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 762

Indexed as: Abdulle v. Old Navy Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sagal Abdulle, Applicant

Mindy Noble, Counsel

Old Navy Canada, Wendy McRae and Aala Sakaji, Respondents

Julie O’Donnell, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, ancestry and ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). On April 15, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing scheduling this matter for a hearing on September 24 and 25, 2014. On May 7, 2014, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her Application to include the ground of creed.

2The respondents filed a Response to the Request for Order opposing the Request.

decision

3The applicant explains that at the time she filed her Application she was not represented by counsel and inadvertently did not check the ground of creed. However, she alleged she was discriminated against because she wore a head scarf, which she states was a religious head covering.

4The respondents object on the basis that, in their view, the applicant has not alleged anything that would indicate that the individuals involved were aware she was a Muslim. Moreover, the respondents assert that they will be required to file a new Response, which will require them to do further investigation. Moreover, they will be required to do a second search of their documents to ensure that any arguably relevant documents relating to creed are disclosed.

5It is difficult to accept these bald statements with respect to prejudice, particularly when one reviews the content of the Application. The applicant’s narrative includes the following statement about a comment she alleges she made to the store manager at the time of the incident:

I said they [security staff] told me that I looked like someone that shoplifted last week. I said is it because the person was dressed like me and that I’m wearing a head scarf which represents my religion and I’m someone of colour. [Emphasis added]

6I do not accept the submission that the respondents are prejudiced by this amendment given this clear statement, which links the wearing of the head scarf to the applicant’s creed, in the body of the original Application. Whether or not the respondents appreciated that the applicant’s head covering was religious in nature (and was associated with one particular creed) will be a factual matter to be determined by the Tribunal at a hearing on the merits.

order

7Accordingly, I make the following orders:

a. The Application is amended to add the ground of creed; and

b. The respondents are directed to file any amended Response and disclose any additional arguably relevant documents within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision.