Desai v. Laterna Restaurant, 2017 HRTO 1205

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Chandni Desai

Applicant

-and-

Laterna Restaurant

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eban Bayefsky Date: September 14, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1205 Indexed as: Desai v. Laterna Restaurant

1The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities on the basis of creed, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleged that the respondent provided her a meat-based meal, rather than the vegetarian meal she requested, that this was contrary to her religious obligations, and that upon complaining, the respondent insulted her religious beliefs.

2On July 28, 2017, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, advising her that a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent.

3The applicant filed submissions in response to the Notice on July 31, 2017. The applicant maintained that, by providing a meat-based meal, the respondent failed to accommodate her “creed-based food restrictions” and that, when she complained, the respondent’s statement to her that, “It won’t hurt you”, “makes a mockery of [her] religious beliefs” and is a specific act of discrimination on the basis of creed.

Analysis and Decision

4An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.

5The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to enforcement of the Code. To fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, an application must contain allegations that connect a respondent’s conduct to one or more prohibited grounds of discrimination.

6The Application and the applicant’s submissions deal with allegations of religious discrimination. While the materials provided by the applicant do not specifically indicate that the respondent was aware of the applicant’s creed-based dietary restrictions, the applicant appears to be saying that the respondent ought to have known that her creed required her to have a vegetarian meal.

7I am, therefore, not prepared to find at this stage of the proceedings that it is plain and obvious that the Application falls outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

order

8The Application will proceed in the Tribunal’s process.

9The Registrar shall deliver this Interim Decision to the respondent, along with a copy of the Application.

10The respondent shall file with the Tribunal a Response to the Application in Form 2, no later than 35 days from the date the Tribunal sends the respondent a copy of the Application.

11The applicant shall file a Reply, if any, no later than 21 days from the date the Tribunal sends the applicant a copy of the Response.