Tchavoshi v. Kiawer, 2015 HRTO 131

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Masoud Tchavoshi Applicant

-and-

Mehdi Kiawer Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: January 28, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 131

Indexed as: Tchavoshi v. Kiawer

APPEARANCES

Masoud Tchavoshi Self-represented

Mehdi Kiawer, Respondent Steven Morris, Counsel

Introduction

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

2The Application was heard in Toronto on October 21, 2014. The applicant was to provide final written submissions to the Tribunal by December 31, 2014. To date the applicant has not provided written submissions to the Tribunal.

3The applicant identifies as Iranian who speaks Farsi as well as English. The respondent identifies as Iranian of Kurdish ethnic origin and speaks Kurdish, Farsi as well as English. The respondent obtained his status in Canada through a Convention refugee claim in which he was found to be a Convention refugee on the basis that he faced a serious possibility of persecution in Iran at the hands of the Iranian regime due to his Kurdish identity.

4The respondent is in the business of home renovations. In September 2012 he was hired by the Applicant to perform renovations on a home in Oshawa allegedly owned by the Applicant. The agreement between the parties was oral; there was no written contract.

5The renovations commenced without incident, however, as construction progressed the parties began to disagree as to the nature of the work to be done, the quality of work completed, time-lines for the completion of the work, additional renovations to be done and payments for work completed. Essentially the respondent abandoned the project when, allegedly, the applicant refused to pay him. He claims that the applicant owes him approximately $25,000.00 for the work he has done on the house.

6It is unclear whether the applicant believes that he owes the respondent any money at all. However, in his Application, the applicant is seeking $25,000.00 in general damages. He claims that the respondent carried out the renovations to this home in a sub-standard manner because he, the applicant, is Iranian and not Kurdish. In summary, the applicant is claiming that the respondent designed his course of conduct solely for the purpose of making the applicant suffer because he is a non-Kurdish Iranian.

7The respondent denies the allegations that his renovation work was sub-standard or that his work was inferior or that his work performance was influenced by the applicant’s Iranian identity. He acknowledges that there were disputes between the parties but that they related solely to the renovation project and worsened by the fact that there was no written contract and not by the Iranian identity of the applicant and the Kurdish identity of the respondent.

analysis and decision

8Having considered the documents filed by the parties, the applicant’s evidence and cross-examination and the evidence of the respondent and his cross-examination, I find that the applicant has failed to establish discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

9The applicant’s testimony, in my view, demonstrated a profound bias against the respondent. The applicant attempted to bolster his allegations that the respondent was motivated by the applicant’s Iranian identity by exploiting the historical enmity between the Iranian regime and the Iranian Kurds as if this on its own would establish his case. The applicant suggested that the respondent holds a grudge against Iranians. He alleged the respondent was part of a Kurdish political movement seeking the separation of northern Iran from Iran to form an independent Kurdistan. He suggested that the respondent looks down on Iranians because he was probably tortured by the Iranian regime before he escaped from Iran as a refugee. The conclusion drawn by the applicant as to the respondent’s allegedly unfavourable attitude towards Iranians, based on his politics and his alleged mistreatment by the Iranian regime, is mere speculation, and does not provide an evidentiary basis that would establish that the respondent’s alleged poor workmanship was motivated by the applicant’s Iranian identity.

10The applicant’s case essentially rests on a telephone conversation that the applicant had with the respondent in February, 2013. According to the applicant, it was this call that led him to conclude that the respondent deliberately undermined the renovation project because the applicant is Iranian. During this call, the respondent allegedly told the applicant: “I hate the Farsi people”; “I am Kurdish and not Farsi”; and, “You do not tell me what to do”.

11The respondent does not deny that this telephone conversation took place although he recalls it differently. He maintains that during the call the applicant was speaking Farsi and that he advised the applicant that he was in Canada and requested that the applicant speak English. He further advised him that he was Kurdish and Kurds do not lie.

12Of the two versions of the telephone conversation, I prefer the respondent’s. The applicant testified simply that the applicant made the three comments indicated during the telephone call. In the narrative of his Application, the applicant identifies the remarks as (a), (b) and (c). The applicant provided no evidence as to the substance of the telephone conversation or the context in which the alleged statements were allegedly made. In my view, it is highly unlikely that the respondent would have just blurted out the alleged remarks during the call. On the other hand, the respondent was able to provide context for the remarks he says he made.

13The applicant was confused as to the time when the telephone conversation took place whereas the applicant was quite clear that the call took place in the late afternoon. This timeframe is consistent with the timing of ensuing text messages between the parties arising out of the telephone conversation.

14Finally, it does not make any sense that the respondent would say that he hates Farsi people. There are no Farsi people. Farsi is a language and not a nationality or ethnic group. There are Farsi speaking people in Iran but it is unlikely that the respondent would have been referring to a hatred for Farsi speaking people because the respondent speaks Farsi fluently. The respondent testified that he sees himself first as an Iranian who speaks Farsi and secondly as a Kurd.

15The applicant had a full opportunity to provide evidence that would demonstrate that his Iranian nationality was a factor in the allegedly shoddy manner in which the respondent carried out the renovation project, thereby showing Code related discrimination. In my view, he provided none.

16This is not a human rights matter. In my view, what we are dealing with is a contractual commercial disagreement between two individuals exasperated by the fact that there was no written agreement and only the proverbial handshake to seal the deal.

17For these reasons the Application is dismissed.