HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Julia Szabo
Applicant
-and-
Graco Children’s Products Inc. and Elfe Juvenile Products
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Eli Fellman
Indexed as: Szabo v. Graco Children’s Products Inc.
APPEARANCES
Julia Szabo, Applicant
Self-represented
Elfe Juvenile Products, Respondent
I.T. Bern, Counsel
Graco Children’s Products Inc., Respondent
No one appearing
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to goods, services or facilities because of ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2In 2012, the applicant purchased a stroller manufactured by the respondent Graco Children’s Products Inc. (“Graco”). In 2014 she contacted the retailer where she purchased the stroller to inquire about having a wheel repaired or replaced. The retailer directed her to the customer service telephone line operated by Elfe Juvenile Products (“Elfe”). Elfe is not related to Graco. It distributes products manufactured by Graco, and other companies, to Canadian retailers.
3On January 23, 2014, the applicant called the Elfe customer service number and spoke with two different Elfe employees. She was advised that Elfe could send her a replacement wheel once she provided the stroller’s model number and date of manufacture. The applicant was unable to determine the stroller’s model number, and wrote a letter of complaint to the Elfe manager of customer service the following day. The manager of customer service wrote back by email and explained where to find the model number and date of manufacture, and that this information is imperative in order to ensure that Elfe orders the correct replacement wheel.
4The applicant asserts that she was subject to discrimination based on her ethnic origin. The applicant identifies herself as someone who is from Europe originally. She believes that she received poor customer service because she speaks English with an accent.
5By way of a Case Assessment (“CAD”) dated December 12, 2014, the Tribunal directed, on its own initiative, that that a summary hearing be held to determine whether this Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.
6As stated in paragraph five of the CAD, the Tribunal does not have the general power to deal with allegations of unfairness. It can only deal with alleged discrimination or harassment on the grounds set out in the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). To succeed in an Application, an applicant must be able to prove discrimination on the basis of a Code ground on a balance of probabilities. To show discrimination, an applicant must prove a link between a respondent’s alleged actions and a Code ground.
7I find that this matter should not proceed to a hearing because there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed. The applicant is unable to identify any evidence that may establish that she was treated in a discriminatory manner by the employees who answered the Elfe customer service number. The applicant’s belief that she was given a lower quality of customer service by Elfe because she speaks English with an accent is purely speculative and unsupported by evidence.
8In addition, paragraph 10 of the CAD directs the applicant to provide to the Tribunal, within 14 days of the CAD, a contact person and current address for Graco failing which the Application against the respondent Graco may be dismissed as abandoned.
9The applicant has not provided the Tribunal with a contact person and current address for Graco. Therefore, the Application against the respondent Graco is dismissed as abandoned.
ORDER
10The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of March, 2015.
“Signed by”
Eli Fellman
Vice-chair