HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

______________________________________________________________________

B E T W E E N:Alexander AllarieApplicant-and-Keith Rouble and Leslie RoubleRespondents

______________________________________________________________________

DECISION

______________________________________________________________________

Adjudicator:

Leslie Reaume

Date:

January 20, 2010

File Number:

2009-01239-I

Citation:

2010 HRTO 61

Indexed as: Allarie v. Rouble

______________________________________________________________________

2 0 1 0 H R T O 6 1 ( C a n L I I )

APPEARANCES

)Alexander Allarie, Applicant ) On his own behalf))Leslie Rouble and ) On their own behalfKeith Rouble, Respondents )

2 0 1 0 H R T O 6 1 ( C a n L I I )

BACKGROUND

[1] Alexander Allarie (the “applicant”) filed an Application under section 34 of Part IVof the Ontario

Human Rights Code,

R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “

Code

”), onJanuary 26, 2009 alleging discrimination in relation to a service on the ground ofdisability. The hearing into the Application took place on December 1, 2009.[2] The original respondent to this Application was the Granary, a bulk and naturalfood store located in Carleton Place, Ontario (“Granary”). Keith Rouble and LeslieRouble were the owners of the store in August 2008, when the events giving rise to thisApplication occurred. The respondents indicated in their Response that they are nolonger the owners of the Granary and that the new owners did not assume responsibilityfor the Application as a condition of the sale. As a result, the Application has beenamended removing the Granary and adding the Roubles as the proper respondents.[3] There is a long and unfortunate history to this Application and it was obviousfrom the outset of the hearing that this issue has engendered considerable anger,hostility, and confusion. The respondents were particularly hostile toward the applicant,the Tribunal and the human rights system in general. In her opening statement Ms.Rouble expressed considerable anger that the Tribunal would “gladly entertain Mr.Allarie’s ludicrous complaint” and outrage at being “compelled” to attend the hearing tobe “interrogated” by the government.[4] As a result, I took some time to explain to the parties the provisions of the

Code

which relate to the Application, the mandate of the Tribunal to apply a fair, just andexpeditious process in resolving Applications and the statutory requirement to providethe parties with an opportunity to make oral submissions before the Tribunal disposes ofan Application that is within its jurisdiction. I also described to the parties how thehearing would be conducted and reinforced that they would have a full opportunity to beheard in relation to the circumstances underlying the Application.[5] The hearing lasted for approximately one and a half hours. I heard evidence from