The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has dismissed a discrimination complaint brought by a Chinese Canadian man against Toronto Employment and Social Services, finding that staff at a city-run employment centre did not deny him service based on his race, ancestry, place of origin or ethnic origin.
The applicant, Q.Z., alleged that staff at the Crossways Employment Centre refused to serve him after he experienced trouble checking in for assistance on March 28, 2018. He claimed that a front-desk employee made a discriminatory comment about his accent, and that the involvement of a supervisor and security guard amounted to a denial of service based on his ethnic background.
The tribunal rejected those allegations, finding no credible evidence that discrimination occurred. It found instead that the incident stemmed from the applicant’s own behaviour and that staff acted appropriately in responding to a challenging situation.
Trouble checking in
The facts surrounding the initial interaction were largely undisputed. Q.Z. attempted to check in using a QR code but encountered technical issues. He then approached the reception desk, where he interacted with a staff member.
Q.Z., who speaks English with an accent, alleged that the employee had difficulty understanding his name and told him, “You are rude and speak English with a strong accent.” He further alleged that a security guard and supervisor later refused him service.
The employee testified that she had difficulty locating the applicant’s name in the system — a not uncommon issue, she said, due to differences in how names are entered by staff. She stated that Q.Z. became loud and entered her personal space, prompting her to leave the desk to seek help from a supervisor.
The employee denied making any comment about the applicant’s accent. She also testified that she routinely works with clients who speak English as a second language and is accustomed to communication challenges. The tribunal found her evidence credible and accepted her account of events.
“I find that if the applicant experienced any difficulties in receiving services that day, it was due to the applicant’s actions in raising their voice and getting into (her) personal space,” the adjudicator wrote.
Credibility of testimony
The tribunal heard evidence from Q.Z., the employee, a security guard and a City of Toronto manager.
The guard testified that he approached the front desk only after hearing raised voices. He did not witness the start of the interaction, but stated that Q.Z. left the area on his own. Under cross-examination, the applicant admitted that the security guard did not ask him to leave, that he was not trespassed, and that he returned to the building later the same day without attempting to access services again.
The tribunal gave weight to the credibility and consistency of the City’s witnesses. It found the applicant’s testimony lacked clarity and included admissions that undermined his claims. For instance, Q.Z. acknowledged during cross-examination that he could not recall the exact words the employee allegedly used.
The tribunal also noted that the phrase “You are rude and speak English with a strong accent” was unlikely to have been said, calling it “an unnatural statement.”
Handling the situation
The decision found that staff at the employment centre responded reasonably to the situation. The employee made multiple attempts to locate the applicant in the system and disengaged from the conversation only after the applicant raised his voice and encroached on her personal space.
“I find it credible that following the applicant raising their voice and coming into (her) personal space, (she) temporarily left to get her supervisor,” the tribunal wrote.
It also emphasized that, despite the presence of a security guard and a supervisor, the applicant was not asked to leave nor formally denied service. “I find that despite (the employee) getting their supervisor after the initial interaction and the security guard coming to the desk, the applicant was not refused service,” the adjudicator found.
Complaint follow-up
Q.Z. also alleged that the City failed to properly investigate his complaint after he followed up via email nearly a year after the incident. The tribunal acknowledged that the City initially failed to send out a response letter, but ultimately did so about three weeks after his email.
Internal emails entered into evidence showed that staff took the complaint seriously and held internal meetings, including one with the security guard involved in the incident.
While case law has not established a clear duty to investigate in service-based complaints, the tribunal found that if such a duty existed, it was met in this case. “Although the applicant did not receive a detailed description of the investigation following their complaint, a reasonable investigation did occur,” the tribunal held.
Application dismissed
After weighing all of the evidence, the tribunal concluded that Q.Z. failed to establish discrimination under the Human Rights Code.
“For all of the reasons above, I find that the applicant has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that race, ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin were factors in the applicant’s experience of not receiving services,” the decision stated.
For more information, see Zheng v. Toronto (City), 2025 HRTO 1609 (CanLII).
