Barton v. Gregory’s Leather Ltd., 2015 HRTO 1030

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Mark Barton Applicant

-and-

Gregory’s Leather Ltd. and Gregory Gitas Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw Date: August 4, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1030 Indexed as: Barton v. Gregory’s Leather Ltd.

Appearances

Mark Barton, Applicant Self-represented

Gregory’s Leather Ltd. and Gregory Gitas, Respondents Self-represented

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2Pursuant to a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated April 16, 2015, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be convened pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure to determine whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of success that the Application will succeed.

3Both parties made submissions at the summary hearing by teleconference.

Factual Background

4The applicant self-identifies as black. He alleges that on October 22, 2014, he went to the respondent place of business, Gregory’s Leather Ltd. (“the leather store”) and spoke to the personal respondent, Mr. Gitas. The applicant told Mr. Gitas he wanted some leather pants altered because he had lost a lot of weight because of a health issue. He also advised Mr. Gitas he wished to buy a vest.

5The applicant states that Mr. Gitas did not ask him to take the pants out of the bag or try them on, but simply declined to do the work for him.

6The applicant states that Mr. Gitas told him the pants would not look good if he took them in. The applicant submits that when he left the store, he could not believe that Mr. Gitas was prejudiced against him. He felt Mr. Gitas was prejudiced because normally when one takes clothes to a tailor, the tailor asks the person to try them on, which Mr. Gitas did not do.

7The applicant submits Mr. Gitas did tell him he would have to pay up front and that he told Mr. Gitas that was not a problem.

8The applicant had a friend who is white take the pants back to the store a few days later and ask for alterations, and the applicant alleges Mr. Gitas asked that person to try the pants on.

9Mr. Gitas does not remember the applicant coming in. He states he has run the business since 1973. If he does repair work, he explains it up front to the customer because the leather business is very hard, and because it is hard to make leather pants look good if they need to be taken in.

10He explains that if a customer wants alterations, he gives the customer the price up front. For leather pants, he sends the customer to try on the pants, and if they look okay, he has the customer sign something and explains to the customer what he is going to do and the price.

11As a rule, Mr. Gitas tells customers how he operates his business. He takes either half or the full deposit up front, because many times people will come in and leave their items and never come back to get them.

12The applicant reiterates that when he went into store, he put the bag on the counter and did not take the pants out of the bag. Mr. Gitas did not ask him to do so, nor did he ask the applicant to try the pants on. Without even looking at the pants he said the pants would not look good if he took them in. The applicant questions how Mr. Gitas could say that when the pants still were in the bag. He thought Mr. Gitas would have him try them on and would take measurements, but that was not done, even though Mr. Gitas said he asks customers to try the pants on.

Decision

13After reviewing and considering all of the submissions of the parties, and accepting, without finding, for the purposes of this decision, the applicant’s allegations as true, I cannot find that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant can succeed under the Code.

14The Application will continue to the next stage in the hearing process. Pursuant to Rule 19A.6, I do not consider it necessary or useful to provide further reasons. The presiding adjudicator will be in the best position to determine the scope of the evidence and issues at the hearing.

Next Steps

15The applicant has agreed to mediation in this matter. Within seven days of their receipt of this Interim Decision, the respondents shall advise the Registrar if they are interested in mediation.

16If the respondents are not interested in mediation, or if they do not advise the Registrar if they are interested or not within seven days of their receipt of this Interim Decision, this Application will be set for a one-day hearing.