HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mukesh Chopra

Applicant

-and-

Aritzia LP

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: September 29, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1285

Indexed as: Chopra v. Aritzia LP

APPEARANCES

Mukesh Chopra, Applicant

Self-represented

Aritzia LP, Respondent

Kathryn Bird, Counsel

1This is a breach of settlement Application filed under s. 45.9 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application arises out of a settlement reached at a mediation before the Tribunal in 2014.

Factual Background

2The relevant facts in this case are not in dispute.

3The applicant filed an Application in 2013 alleging that the respondent had discriminated against him contrary to the Code.

4The parties agreed to a settlement of the Application. The relevant clauses of the Minutes of Settlement (“Minutes”) state as follows:

3. The Applicant hereby agrees and acknowledges that he is not permitted to enter or conduct transactions at any retail stores owned and operated by Aritzia LP (bearing the storefront names of Aritzia, TNA and Wilfred) in this province of Ontario from the date of the execution of these Minutes of Settlement forward.

4. The applicant hereby acknowledges that Aritzia LP will take steps to notify its staff members of his agreement not to enter or conduct transactions at its retail stores across Ontario and further acknowledges that if he enters a retail store owned and operated by Aritzia LP in Ontario he will be asked to leave the premises.

5. Aritzia LP hereby acknowledges that the No Trespass Notice issued on May 23, 2013 is hereby rescinded.

5There is no dispute between the parties that, on August 25, 2016, the applicant entered the Aritzia store in the Square One mall. A manager called security and the applicant was removed from the store.

Submissions

6The applicant submitted that the Minutes did not specifically put in place a lifelong ban on his entering the respondent’s stores. The applicant stated that he has worked in the security field and that a one-year ban is standard in that field. He submitted that, if the parties intended to deviate from that industry standard, they would have done so explicitly. He argued that the Minutes were vague as to the time period within which he would banned from the respondent’s stores. The applicant stated that would not have agreed to a settlement that included a lifetime ban. He pointed out that his removal from the respondent’s store occurred several years after the Minutes were entered into. The applicant also submitted that he was not causing any problems in the store and that the manager targeted him based on his race and/or ethnicity. He said that the experience was extremely humiliating and stressful for him and that he was very disappointed with the respondent’s attitude.

7The respondent submitted that the Minutes are clear and unambiguous. The respondent argued that paragraph 3 clearly and unambiguously sets out the applicant’s agreement that he was not permitted to enter or conduct transactions in any of the respondent’s Ontario stores “from the date of the execution of these Minutes of Settlement forward”.

Findings

8In a breach of settlement Application, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to interpreting the settlement that the parties reached by interpreting the words they used in the context of the settlement as a whole. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction does not extend to determining whether the settlement was fair or whether it complies with any industry standard.

9In my view, the wording of the Minutes is clear and unambiguous. Paragraph 3 clearly states that the applicant agreed that he was not permitted to enter or conduct transactions in any of the respondent’s Ontario stores “from the date of the execution of these Minutes of Settlement forward.”

10In my view that language is unambiguous and it does not contain an end date for the applicant’s agreement not to enter or conduct transactions in the respondent’s Ontario stores. It may be, as argued by the applicant, that there is an industry standard of one year for these types of bans (a matter on which I express no opinion); however, that is not the issue before me. As noted above, the issue before me is whether the respondent breached the Minutes, not whether the minutes comply with any industry standard or whether they are fair overall. I would add that the issue before me is not whether the respondent discriminated against the applicant when it removed him from the store. The issue is solely whether it breached the Minutes.

11In my view, the respondent did not breach the clear and unambiguous wording in Minutes. The Minutes clearly set out the applicant’s agreement that he is not permitted to enter or conduct transactions in any of the respondent’s Ontario stores from the date of the Minutes forward. The parties could have included an end date for this ban but they did not. Further, the Minutes set out the applicant’s acknowledgment that the respondent would ask him to leave the premises if he entered any of its stores. That is what occurred on August 25, 2016.

order

12For the reasons set out above, the respondent did not breach the Minutes of Settlement and the Application for Contravention of Settlement must be dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of September, 2017.