HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Gaiane Tonoian
Applicant
-and-
Angelo’s Unisex Hairstyling, Angelo DiBenedetto and Maryam Bakos
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jacek Janczur
Indexed as: Tonoian v. Angelo's Unisex Hairstyling
APPEARANCES
Gaiane Tonoian, Applicant
Self-represented
Angelo's Unisex Hairstyling, Angelo DiBenedetto and Maryam Bakos, Respondents
Wesley Jamieson, Counsel
1The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination because of family status, marital status and reprisal in the area of employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the Code”).
2The applicant worked as a hairdresser for the organizational respondent. As a hairdresser, she rented a chair in the organizational respondent’s business premises, but it was the personal respondent, Angelo DiBenedetto, the owner of the organizational respondent, who assigned customers to her and the other hairdressers.
3The applicant explained that she has been in a common-law relationship with her common-law husband for nine years. According to the applicant, she was the only hairdresser that was not formally or legally married.
4According to the applicant, the fact that she was in a common-law relationship and not legally married was the subject of frequent commentary in the workplace.
5The applicant alleges that Mr. DiBenedetto would point to the other hairdressers and say “see she’s married” thus drawing attention to the applicant and her unmarried status.
6The applicant alleges that Maryam Bakos, another personal respondent, would call her vulgar names, including “whore”, and at the same time that she would point out that the applicant was not legally married.
7The applicant alleges that she brought this name-calling to the attention of Mr. DiBenedetto. He would tell her that it was entertainment for him and that he was saving twenty dollars by not having to go to the theatre.
8The applicant alleges that after she drew the name-calling to the attention of Mr. DiBenedetto, she no longer had walk-in customers referred to her and as a result she earned less money.
9The applicant alleges that she told Mr. DiBenedetto that she objected to the name-calling and that she would file a human rights application. According to the applicant, Mr. Benedetto’s response was “human rights can’t do anything here.” It is on this basis that her allegation of reprisal is founded.
10Eventually, the applicant stopped working for the organizational respondent as she could stand it no longer.
11On February 9, 2017 the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction directing a summary hearing of the Application. The Tribunal directed the summary hearing because it appeared that the applicant might be unable to prove a connection between the respondents’ actions and a protected ground of discrimination under the Code.
12The summary hearing was held on July 18, 2017.
Analysis and Decision
13The 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. The Application and the applicant’s submissions deal with allegations of discrimination on the basis of family status, marital status and reprisal.
14In order to proceed beyond the summary hearing stage of an application, the applicant must be able to point to evidence she would be able to call in a hearing that could establish a link between the actions of the respondent and the prohibited grounds she cites in the Application.
15For the purposes of a summary hearing, the Tribunal must accept the version of the facts put forward by the applicant to be true and provable. The issues in a summary hearing is, based on this version of the facts, whether the Application has no reasonable prospect of success
16On the basis of the Application and the submissions of the parties, the applicant could call evidence at a hearing which could establish that the organizational and personal respondents created a distinction between the applicant and the other hairdressers on the basis of her marital status. This will require consideration of the evidence of all parties and an assessment of their credibility by the adjudicator that hears the case on the merits if it proceeds to hearing.
17In the circumstances it cannot be said that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.
order
18Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to process the Application.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of August, 2017.
“Signed by”
Jacek Janczur
Vice-chair