HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Gregory Hill Applicant
-and-
Yousef Bani-Ahmad c.o.b. as Ali Baba's Restaurant Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Eva Nichols
Indexed as: Hill v. Bani-Ahmad
APPEARANCES
Gregory Scott Hill, Applicant Isai Chalmiev, Representative.
Yousef Bani-Ahmad c.o.b. as Ali Baba's Restaurant, Respondent Self-Represented
Introduction
1This is an Application filed on April 29, 2013, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to the provision of goods, services and facilities because of disability.
2The applicant states that he is a person with a disability who relies on the services of a guide dog. The dog, Mara, is a registered service animal. In his Application the applicant included a copy of his registration document with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and an Identification Card issued by the Attorney General's Office for his dog. He alleges that he was denied services because of the presence of his dog, when attending at the respondent’s restaurant, Ali Baba's Restaurant, located at 197 Dundas Street West in Toronto.
3The respondent does not dispute that the applicant is a person with a disability or that the dog is a service animal. The respondent does not explicitly dispute that the applicant was denied service at the restaurant, but questions the accuracy of some of the facts put forward by the applicant.
LOCATION OF THE INCIDENT
4The applicant attached photographs of the restaurant where the incident allegedly took place and provided an address for the respondent on Church Street in Toronto. On September 17, 2013, the respondent provided the name and address of a contact person for Ali Baba's Restaurant and noted that the photographs contained in the Application were of a different location of the Ali Baba's Restaurant chain than was cited by the applicant. The Response did not address the issue of the alleged discrimination.
5The applicant filed a Request (Form 10) to amend the Application on the basis that the Church Street address was an error and to include the correct address on Dundas Street West. The applicant explained that he and his wife had both been very upset by the refusal of service and did not actually look at the address of the restaurant when leaving. His wife took a photograph of the outside of the restaurant. After deciding to file the Application, he and his wife did a Google search of the restaurant chain and mistakenly identified