Babic v. MMM Tims Inc., 2015 HRTO 910

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dobroslavka Babic

Applicant

-and-

MMM Tims Inc.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: July 9, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 910

Indexed as: Babic v. MMM Tims Inc.

APPEARANCES

Dobroslavka Babic, Applicant

Self-represented

MMM Tims Inc., Respondent

Michele Mizuk, Representative

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, place of origin, creed, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, family status, and marital status.

OVERVIEW

2In an Interim Decision, 2015 HRTO 146 dated January 30, 2015, the Tribunal dismissed this Application as against the Office of the Independent Police Review Director after it was determined that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to deal with that portion of the Application. The Interim Decision further directed that a summary hearing be held by teleconference pursuant to Rule 19A of its Rules of Procedure. The issue to be determined in a summary hearing is whether an 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.

3The Interim Decision advised the applicant that during the summary hearing she would need to make submissions about why the Application should not be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success and would need to provide details of the evidence she intends to rely on to show the link between the respondents’ actions and her of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, place of origin, creed, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, family status, and/or marital status.

4The summary hearing was held by teleconference on June 15, 2015. At the beginning of the hearing, I explained to the parties that the focus of the summary hearing was on the question of whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that her Code rights were violated. I invited the applicant to explain why she believes the respondent’s acts amount to discrimination under the Code.

5During the summary hearing, I heard submissions from the applicant and from the representative for the respondent. The applicant and representative for the respondent also answered questions that I put to them.

6For the purpose of this summary hearing, the Tribunal accepts that the facts as alleged by the applicant are true. The following summary of the facts is based on the allegations set out in the Application, the Response and the submissions made by the applicant and the respondent during the summary hearing.

Analysis

7The applicant states that on September 20, 2014 she went inside the respondent coffee shop to get a coffee. She had to wait a long time and she believed she was being ignored. She says that she asked the server at the counter why she had to wait so long. She says that this person did not apologize and he did not give her any reason why she had to wait so long. When asked how long she waited she said that she waited over one hour. She says that person behind the counter then just looked at her and told her to leave. She says that she had to leave then and that she did not get her coffee and had to go to another coffee shop. She stated that this was a public space and that she was prevented from using this public space and that is discrimination.

8The applicant stated that the person behind the counter had brown skin and she does not. She alleges that this was racial discrimination and hatred. She says that this person said very loudly to her, “Go out. Go out.” She says that she left and did not go back for almost one year. She says that she just recently went back and got coffee and that she felt threated that someone might kill her and that they would lock the doors and call the police.

9The applicant states that she has experienced a lot of pain and suffering because of this incident.

10The applicant was asked why she believed that the reason she was ignored and then asked to leave was based on her race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, place of origin, creed, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, family status, and/or marital status. The applicant was unable to state how the treatment she is alleged to have experienced is connected to the grounds of discrimination as she has alleged. Her allegations appear to be based on the fact that she believes that the person who asked her to leave is a male with brown skin and she is not male and does not have brown skin. I provided the applicant with some examples of an application that would have a connection between a ground of discrimination and the treatment they received. I explained that for example, it would be discriminatory for the person who was working on September 20, 2014 to have said to her, “we do not serve people from your country of origin” or “we do not serve coffee to divorced women”. The applicant did not provide any further details of the evidence she had that could demonstrate a connection between the treatment she experienced and grounds of discrimination that she had listed in her Application.

11The respondent made submissions in support of dismissing the Application. The representative for the respondent stated that there was no person who could be described as having dark or brown skin who was working on September 20, 2014. As well, there was no male employee working that day.

12Even if I accept the applicant’s allegation that she has been treated unfairly, which is denied by the respondent, I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant can succeed in demonstrating that she experienced a breach of the Code. In order to find that there was a breach of her Code rights, it must be found that the respondent’s conduct has to be based, at least in part, on at least one of the prohibited grounds identified by the applicant. In this case, the applicant is not able to point to any evidence, beyond her supposition, which might support a connection between the alleged treatment and a Code ground.

13Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.