The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ordered a downtown Toronto restaurant to pay $10,000 to a Black man after ruling it discriminated against him by asking the man and his three friends, all Black, to prepay for their meals.

In her ruling released earlier this month, adjudicator Esi Codjoe found Hong Shing Chinese Restaurant discriminated against Emile Wickham, writing in her decision that he “was presumed to be a potential thief in waiting despite any evidence to that effect.”

The restaurant says it is appealing the outcome.

Read more:

Opinion | Denial of systemic racism is dissociation from reality

Court upholds dismissal alleging Downtown BIA ambassadors were discriminatory

Racism should factor in sentencing of Black offenders, judge rules

On the night of his 28th birthday, in May 2014, Emile Wickham and three friends went out to the restaurant at Dundas St. and Centre Ave., a block east of University Ave., to celebrate.

Wickham, now 31, at the time a York University student who worked as a legislative usher at the Ontario Legislative Assembly, was born in Trinidad and Tobago and immigrated to Canada more than a decade ago. A decision document in the case describes him as “visibly Black or Afro-Caribbean.” All the members of Wickham’s group that night were Black.

According to the decision released on April 18, after the group sat down the server told them they would need to pay in advance of being served their meals. They asked the server whether this was necessary, and the server said it was their policy.

Wickham testified during the tribunal case that he asked patrons in “at least three” other groups if they were asked to do the same. None said they were subject to the same request.

“Upon learning that no other patrons had been asked to prepay for their meals they asked the waiter to explain why they had to pay and no one else had been expected to do so,” the decision says.

“Rather than offer any explanation for the prepayment he simply asked them whether they wanted their money back.”

Representatives from Hong Shing didn’t attend the tribunal hearing. In their defence, they filed a statement that said the restaurant was “very busy and at times short-staffed,” and that because of its location, it attracts “something of a transient crowd” and had encountered issues with the “dine and dash,” where customers eat without paying.

They said it was a years-long policy that staff who didn’t know a patron as a regular customer should ask for prepayment.

“There was never any intent to discriminate against the applicant; all customers who are not (known) to be regulars are treated the same way,” the restaurant wrote. Codjoe, in her decision, said there was no evidence such a policy existed.

The restaurant also stated that given the yearlong gap between the incident and the Human Rights tribunal application, which was filed May 2015, they were “unable to investigate the complaint to ascertain what actually transpired on the night in question.”

Colin Li posted a statement on Hong Shing’s Instagram account Monday, saying the restaurant was “deeply concerned” about the situation and the people affected, “with an added consideration that the reported claim occurred four years ago when the restaurant was under different management.”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“There are a number of sensitivities and considerations about this situation, and for that reason, the tribunal outcome is under appeal by legal representatives,” he wrote, adding they won’t be commenting further at this time.

A February 2017 Star profile on the restaurant said it was opened by Li’s parents, Ron and Ann, about 20 years ago and that Colin Li has recently taken over its management.

He could not be reached on a cellphone number Monday.

An employee of the restaurant who answered the phone Monday deferred comment to their lawyer. Lawyer David M. Goodman, listed in previous documents from the case as Hong Shing’s lawyer, said he wasn’t involved after mediation in the case “failed.”

In her decision, Codjoe wrote that Wickham’s “mere presence as a Black man in a restaurant was presumed to be sufficient evidence of his presumed propensity to engage in criminal behaviour.”

“At its core racial profiling is a form of short hand that enables the perpetrator of the behaviour to assume certain facts, and ignore others,” Codjoe wrote.

Speaking to the Star, Wickham said he’s relieved with the decision, and that he and his friends were believed.

“For a number of Black persons who live in Toronto, who live in Canada, a lot of our stories aren’t believed unless there’s a video, there’s a picture, or there’s multiple witnesses,” he said. The tribunal process wasn’t easy for him, he added, and others in the same situation may not have knowledge or access to the legal resources he had.

He hopes that people reading his story take a hard look at their own roles, where any racial prejudice may not be as obvious as it can be within the service industry — “whether they be an admissions officer at a university, a border services guard, a dentist.”

“My story represents countless other stories,” Wickham said, stressing that his case wasn’t just “a restaurant issue.”

Aside from compensation, Hong Shing has also been ordered to place an Ontario Human Rights Commission Code card in a “prominent place” in their restaurant — a “visual reminder,” Codjoe wrote, of their responsibilities.