Set aside by Appeal : Appeal allowed in part on 20 December 2002 CITATION: Moreira & anor -v- Peter Robert Motors Pty Limited [2002] NSWADT 70 DIVISION: Equal Opportunity Division APPLICANTS Nestor Moreira PARTIES: Varina Moreira RESPONDENT Peter Robert Motors Pty Limited FILE NUMBER: 011061 HEARING DATES: 19/12/2001 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 12/19/2001 DATE OF DECISION: 05/10/2002 BEFORE: Innes G - Judicial Member; McDonald O - Member; Pun A - Member APPLICATION: Race Discrimination - Goods and Services MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter LEGISLATION CITED : Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 CASES CITED: APPLICANTS REPRESENTATION: In person RESPONDENT G Brazel, solcitor ORDERS: 1. The Tribunal finds that Mr Nestor and Ms Varina Moreira (the complainants) were discriminated against on the ground of their race in breach of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act by Peter Robert Motors Pty Limited (the respondent); 2. The Tribunal orders the respondent to pay $4000.00 damages to the first complainant and $2000.00 damages to the second complainant, on or before 28 days from the date of publication of this decision. Introduction 1 On 11 June 1999 Mr Nestor Moreira, and his daughter Ms Varina Moreira, lodged complaints with the President of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board against Peter Robert Motors Pty Limited. The complaints alleged discrimination on the ground of the complainants.' race, in the area of goods and services, in that they had been required to leave the respondents car-yard, located on the Pacific Highway at Wyong, as a result of speaking Spanish with each other. This incident occurred on 2 June 1999. 2 Attempts at conciliation were unsuccessful, and the President of the Board referred the matter to the Equal Opportunity Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal on 20 August 2001. 3 The matter was heard by the Tribunal on 19 December 2001. The Evidence 4 Peter Robert Motors Pty Limited is a motor dealer, with two car-yards - one in North Gosford and one in Wyong. At the relevant time Mr Steve McLaughlin was the manager of the company, and Mr Dennis Arndell was a senior salesperson working at the Wyong Yard. 5 Mr Nestor Moreira is of Spanish origin, and came to Australia 27 years ago. He is now retired, but worked for 23 years in a factory which manufactured brakes. He has also worked as a cleaner. 6 Mr Moreira gave his evidence in Spanish. 7 Ms Moreira was born in Australia. 8 The complaint relates to an interaction on 2 June 1999, when the complainants' visited the respondents car-yard to discuss the purchase of a Toyota. They had been shopping that morning, and seen the vehicle in question displayed on their way to the shops. They decided to return and examine the vehicle later. 9 The two complainants returned to the car-yard around lunchtime. They got out of Mr Moreira's car and went to examine two vehicles. 10 The evidence of what took place from this point onwards varies to a large degree between the parties. The Tribunal has set out the evidence of all of those involved. Mr Nestor Moreira's Evidence 11 Mr Moreira gave evidence that he could not recall the month or day of the incident, but it happened in 1999. He confirmed that it occurred about midday. 12 Mr Moreira stated that there were about 50 cars in the yard, and that they were all outside. He said that, apart from the salesperson, there were no other people in the yard when he and his daughter arrived. The salesperson was leaning against the office having his lunch. 13 Mr Moreira said that there were two cars in which he was interested. They were both Toyota Camry stationwagons. One, the colour of which he could not recall, was priced at $9500.00. The other, which was white, was priced at $8900.00. 14 Mr Moreira said that, after he and his daughter had looked at the car, the salesperson came over. He said that his daughter and the salesperson, who he later learned was Mr Arndell, had a conversation in English which he could not understand. He said that the only thing he understood in the conversation was the references to money - both the price of the car he was looking at, and the price he would get for the vehicle he planned to trade in. 15 Mr Moreira explained that he asked his daughter to find out what the yard would give him for his car, a Holden Astra. After Mr Arndell had made some phone calls he came back and Mr Moreira assumed, from hearing references to money, that he had been offered a price of $2000.00. He had a conversation in Spanish with his daughter, which concluded with him telling her to tell Mr Arndell that this was too low, and not to worry about it. 16 Mr Moreira said that following this conversation he understood from Mr Arndells words and gestures, that Mr Arndell wanted them to leave the car yard. He understood the words "get out, get out, you not talking English, get out of my yard". These words were spoken in a loud voice, and emphasised by gestures. 17 Mr Moreira stated that at this point he and his daughter left the car yard. 18 In response to cross-examination, Mr Moreira stated that he had signed the complaint, and other letters to the Anti-Discrimination Board, but that he could not read them. He said that his daughter had written them, and then read them to him before he signed them. He accepted that the original complaint stated the time of the incident as being 2 pm. 19 Following the incident he was very sad and depressed. He had not discussed these feelings with a doctor, but had done so with members of his family. He said that the conciliation conference and hearing brought back to him very bad memories of the incident. 20 It was clear to the Tribunal that Mr Moreira had little understanding of English. He gave evidence that when shopping, if he could not find something on the shelf, he would not buy it rather than asking for it. He clearly understood amounts of money, and some small amount of English, but was unable to conduct a conversation of any length or complexity in English. Varina Moreira's Evidence 21 Ms Moreira confirmed that she and her father were returning from shopping when they stopped at the car yard to look at two cars in which her father was interested. She said that the incident occurred at around 2 pm on 11 June 1999. 22 Ms Moreira stated that the car yard holds about 50 cars. She said that there were no other customers in the yard. A man that she later learned to be Mr Arndell was the only person present. She said that he was wearing a white hat with a brim. She said that he was wearing a light shirt and dark trousers, and she thought that he had been using a mobile phone 23 Ms Moreira said that when they pulled up her father was interested in two cars - a blue Toyota Camry stationwagon priced at $9990.00, and a white Toyota Camry stationwagon priced at $8990.00. Ms Moreira said that they looked at the blue car, and she expressed the view that it wasn't bad. Then her father said that they should look at the white one, as it was cheaper but appeared to be in the same condition. 24 Ms Moreira said that they then went and looked at the white car, checking the interior and lifting the bonnet. Mr Arndell had still not come over to them. Ms Moreira said that she then walked over to him and said "don't you want to sell us a car. That's a shame. We were going to buy it but now we are going to go." She said this in a joking manner with a smile on her face. 25 Ms Moreira stated that Mr Arndell then came over and started showing them the car. 26 Ms Moreira stated that while Mr Arndell was showing them the car she did all of the talking. She said that her father had asked her to ask Mr Arndell what he would give for Mr Moreira's car, a Holden Astra, which she did. Mr Arndell went and looked at the car, opening doors and bonnet, and made a call on his mobile phone. He came back to them and offered $2000.00. 27 Ms Moreira said that she repeated this figure to her father in Spanish. Her father replied, also in Spanish, "It's not enough, don't worry about it, it's all right, let's go." 28 Ms Moreira stated that at this point Mr Arndell started going red in the face and said "what, you don't talk English." Then Mr Arndell said "get out, get out, get out of my car yard." 29 Ms Moreira stated that when these words, which were supported by gestures, were said her father went pale. Then they started to leave. 30 As they were leaving Ms Moreira stated that she said "do you know what year it is?" to which Mr Arndell replied "Der." Ms Moreira stated that she then said "You're discriminating against us." to which Mr Arndell replied "Go and dob me in." 31 Ms Moreira stated that as they were driving home her father said to her that the first thing she must do when they reached home was to ring the head office of the car yard and complain. She stated that she did this. 32 When Ms Moreira phoned she asked for the person in charge, and was put through to Mr McLaughlin. She stated that she was not agitated, but that she was upset about what had just happened to her father. She said that she told Mr McLaughlin what had happened, and asked him for the name of the person involved, and the licence number of the dealership. He did not discuss what had taken place, or offer help, with other purchases. Ms Moreira stated that she intended to ring the Anti-Discrimination Board. 33 Ms Moreira stated that this was the next call she made. 34 On the advice of an officer at the Board Ms Moreira stated that she wrote a letter to them the same day, 2 June 1999. She read that letter to her father - translating it into Spanish - and then sent it. Ms Moreira stated that this was also the process when she sent other letters. 35 Ms Moreira said that, as a result of this incident, her father has lost his confidence. He will not go anywhere any more on his own because he doesn't want to talk to people. Therefore, it is necessary for Ms Moreira's mother or herself to accompany him. 36 In cross-examination Ms Moreira agreed that her complaint stated that the amount offered for the trade-in was $2500.00. She stated that she was uncertain as to the amount as they had visited a lot of car yards. However, she did remember that her father had thought that it was too low. Steven McLaughlin's Evidence 37 Mr McLaughlin gave evidence that at the time of the incident he was Dealer-Principle of the respondent. He confirmed that Mr Arndell was a senior salesperson with the company. 38 Mr McLaughlin stated that around 3 to 3.30 pm on 2 June 1999 he received a phone call from a woman he now knows to be Varina Moreira. He said that she was very upset and her tone was aggressive. Mr McLaughlin said that she described the incident to him, and said that she was going to take it further. He attempted to resolve the issue with her, but quickly determined that this would not be possible. He then concluded the conversation, apologising and offering to assist personally if she wished to continue with the purchase. He stated that he took diary notes of the content and tone of this conversation, but that they were later destroyed. 39 After this phone call Mr McLaughlin stated that he phoned Mr Arndell at the Wyong yard. He said that Mr Arndell made a reference to the customers speaking in Spanish, and that he could not understand them. 40 Mr McLaughlin agreed that the Wyong yard was quite small - probably holding about 40 cars - and that there was probably only one sales person on duty on 2 June 1999 which was a week day. 41 Mr McLaughlin explained that there are two valuers who work for the company, and that if one was not present the valuation would be done by phone following a description by the sales person. If a customer wanted more money on a trade-in the sales person would have to phone again. Mr McLaughlin stated that for a car at this price the valuer would normally give the salesperson a margin of $500.00. 42 Mr McLaughlin stated that the company has a focus on treating all customers with courtesy and respect. It does not have a written policy requiring non-discrimination by staff, but this would be an expectation as part of the broader focus. In fact, the company, which has 90 employees, has no written policies apart from people's employment contracts and the relevant legislation. 43 Mr McLaughlin stated that neither he nor the company authorised employees to act in a way that was racially discriminatory. However he agreed that there was no specific training for staff on relevant legislation in the areas of consumer protection, motor dealers, or discrimination. 44 Mr McLaughlin stated that Mr Arndell had left the employment of the respondent about four months prior to the hearing. Dennis Arndell's Evidence 45 Mr Arndell commenced employment with the respondent in August 1998. Prior to this time he had worked for six years at two other motor dealers. 46 He stated that on 2 June 1999 he was working as the only salesman at the Wyong yard of the company. He said that at about 2 pm he saw two people, whom he later came to know were Nestor and Varina Moreira, walking out of the car yard. He said that Ms Moreira said, jokingly, "don't you want to sell us a car?" and that he replied that of course he would like to help them. 47 Mr Arndell stated that Mr and Ms Moreira indicated interest in a Holden Apollo Sedan near the exit to the car-yard. A discussion ensued during which Mr Arndell showed them the vehicle. He asserted that both of them asked him questions to which he responded. He stated that Mr Moreira had no difficulty conversing in English, although he did have a strong accent. 48 Mr Arndell stated that Mr and Ms Moreira then took the Apollo for a test drive. He could not recall which one of them drove. Further, Mr Arndell did not recall taking licence details, which is normal practise when a vehicle is taken out by a prospective customer. He agreed that he had no record of the licence details. 49 On their return they expressed interest in purchasing the vehicle, and began discussing a trade-in price for Mr Moreira's Pulsar, which Mr Arndell inspected. Mr Arndell stated that he telephoned the respondent's valuer, and offered Mr Moreira a price of $3000.00-$4000.00. 50 Mr Arndell observed that Mr and Ms Moreira were unhappy with this price. Mr Arndell stated that both of them, separately, told him that other dealers had offered more for the Pulsar. 51 Mr Arndell stated that, at this point, Mr and Ms Moreira began to speak in Spanish. He stated that they both became quite agitated, gesticulating with large hand movements, and that he could see that the deal was about to fall through. At this point he said "unless you can speak in English I won't be able to help you." Mr Arndell stated that he wanted to engage them in further conversation so that the deal could progress. 52 Mr Arndell gave evidence that he had no problem with Mr and Ms Moreira speaking in Spanish. However, he felt that if they spoke in English he could continue to talk with them, and may be able to bring the deal to a successful conclusion. He stated that his training encourages him to know the customers objections, and to maintain control. He could not do these things if Spanish continued to be spoken. 53 Mr Arndell stated that at this point Ms Moreira "exploded". Her reply to Mr Arndell's comment, according to his evidence, was "that's racial discrimination." Mr Arndell stated that they continued to speak to him, telling him that other dealers had offered a higher price, and that he was discriminating against them. 54 Mr Arndell stated that both customers, but particularly Ms Moreira, continued to speak to him loudly and aggressively. He described Ms Moreira's comments as a tirade. 55 At this point Mr Arndell stated that he observed another customer, a young man, looking at a car. He said that he was embarrassed that the other customer would hear the way in which Ms Moreira was speaking. He formed the view that the deal with the Moreira's was not going to proceed, and that he should serve the other customer. He said to them "would you please go." and turned to walk away to the other customer. Mr Arndell stated that he was not aggressive towards the Moreira's, nor did he raise his voice to them. 56 Mr Arndell confirmed that later the same afternoon he had a phone call from Mr McLaughlin during which they discussed the incident. 57 Mr Arndell asserted that he did not treat them less favourably on the ground of their race during his interaction with them. 58 Mr Arndell told the Tribunal that he had not been specifically trained by the respondent about discrimination legislation. He agreed that the company had a strong focus on good customer relations. Findings Of Fact 59 As indicated earlier, there is a major disparity between the evidence given in this matter, and it largely turns on findings of fact. 60 The Tribunal has formed the view that, on balance, it prefers the evidence of Mr and Ms Moreira to that of Mr Arndell. It has come to that view for the following reasons: (a) Mr and Ms Moreira's evidence is corroborative, and consistent with the complaint written by Ms Moreira and signed by Mr Moreira days after the events occurred. Whilst Mr Moreira cannot confirm all of the conversations, because of his inability to speak English, he can corroborate the events and the key words spoken, as well as the tone in which they were spoken, and the accompanying gestures. (b) The three major inconsistencies in the events described are the car or cars that were considered for purchase, the car which Mr Moreira owned, and whether the test drive occurred. The Tribunal is of the view that Mr and Ms Moreira would be more likely to recall which type of vehicle they were looking for than Mr Arndell, who was in the business of selling all types of vehicles. Therefore, the Tribunal is satisfied that they were looking at Toyota Camry Stationwagons rather than a Holden Apollo Sedan. The Tribunal is also satisfied that Mr and Ms Moreira would be more likely to know the car that Mr Moreira owned rather than Mr Arndell. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the car for trade-in was a Holden Astra and not a Pulsar. Further, the fact that no record of any licence details was produced in the log for the yard suggests to the Tribunal that the test drive did not, in fact, occur. Both of these findings impact on the credit of Mr Arndell's evidence. (c) Mr Arndell gave evidence that Mr Moreira's English, although accented, was easy to understand. Mr Arndell stated that he conducted conversations with both Mr and Ms Moreira. However, at the Tribunal hearing, it was patently clear that Mr Moreira's English was not to this level. Even allowing for the nature of the hearing, and assuming that Mr Moreira may have been somewhat nervous about the occasion, there was no doubt that Mr Moreira could not have conducted conversations with Mr Arndell. Mr Moreira's English was very limited, to the extent that the Tribunal was surprised that he had not acquired more of the language given the years he has lived in Australia. However, he has clearly not done so. 61 Mr McLaughlin's evidence about his telephone conversation with Ms Moreira is not of much assistance. Whilst he asserts that she was clearly angry and upset, which supports Mr Arndell's evidence of her conduct, this could just as easily have resulted from Mr Arndell's treatment of her father and herself as from any other reason such as a perceived lower price offered for the trade-in vehicle. 62 In fact, in some respects, Mr McLaughlin's evidence diminishes the credit of Mr Arndell's evidence. Mr McLaughlin confirmed the normal $500.00 margin for flexibility given by the valuers for vehicles of this price. It also confirmed that Mr Arndell advised that he had commented on the Moreira's speaking Spanish while they were in the car-yard. 63 For all of the above reasons the Tribunal is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the events occurred as described by Mr and Ms Moreira. The credit of Mr Arndell's evidence is sufficiently challenged by the four issues set out above to mean that the Tribunal prefers the corroborated evidence of the Moreira's. This means that the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Arndell did make the comments alleged about speaking in English, as set out by Mr and Ms Moreira, and did require them to leave the car yard. 64 What the Tribunal must now determine is whether Mr Arndell's conduct constituted Race Discrimination in breach of the provisions of the Act. Findings Of Law 65 The complaints of Mr and Ms Moreira allege breaches of sections 7, 19 and 53 of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act, which provide as follows: 7. What constitutes discrimination on the ground of race (1) A person ( "the perpetrator" ) discriminates against another person ( "the aggrieved person" ) on the ground of race if, on the ground of the aggrieved person's race or the race of a relative or associate of the aggrieved person, the perpetrator: (a) treats the aggrieved person less favourably than in the same circumstances, or in circumstances which are not materially different, the perpetrator treats or would treat a person of a different race or who has such a relative or associate of a different race, or (b) segregates the aggrieved person from persons of a different race or from persons who have such a relative or associate of a different race, or (c) requires the aggrieved person to comply with a requirement or condition with which a substantially higher proportion of persons not of that race, or who have such a relative or associate not of that race, comply or are able to comply, being a requirement which is not reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the case and with which the aggrieved person does not or is not able to comply. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) (a) and (b), something is done on the ground of a person's race if it is done on the ground of the person's race, a characteristic that appertains generally to persons of that race or a characteristic that is generally imputed to persons of that race. 19. Provision of goods and services It is unlawful for a person who provides (whether or not for payment) goods or services to discriminate against another person on the ground of race: (a) by refusing to provide the person with those goods or services, or (b) in the terms on which the other person is provided with those goods or services. 53. Liability of principals and employers (1) An act done by a person as the agent or employee of the person's principal or employer which if done by the principal or employer would be a contravention of this Act is taken to have been done by the principal or employer also unless the principal or employer did not, either before or after the doing of the act, authorise the agent or employee, either expressly or by implication, to do the act. (2) If both the principal or employer and the agent or employee who did the act are subject to any liability arising under this Act in respect of the doing of the act, they are jointly and severally subject to that liability. (3) Despite subsection (1), a principal or an employer is not liable under that subsection if the principal or employer took all reasonable steps to prevent the agent or employee from contravening the Act. (4) For the purposes of subsection (1), the principal or employer of a volunteer or unpaid trainee who contravenes Part 2A is the person or body on whose behalf the volunteer or unpaid trainee provides services. 66 The Act provides that discrimination is less favourable treatment of a person or their associate, on the ground of their race, in the same or similar circumstances. The allegation is that Mr Arndell acted in the way that he did, telling Mr and Ms Moreira not to speak in Spanish and requiring them to leave the car-yard, on the ground of their race. 67 Mr and Ms Moreira are both of Spanish origin, Mr Moreira having been born in Spain. They both speak Spanish, which is clearly a characteristic appertaining to their race. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Arndell acted in the way that he did because they were speaking to each other in Spanish whilst at the car-yard. 68 His treatment (shouting at them and requiring them to leave the yard) is clearly less favourable treatment in the same or similar circumstances, as this would not be the way he would treat other customers. If he did he would not have been employed for long by the respondent. 69 The Tribunal is satisfied that the treatment was on the grounds of the race, or a characteristic of the race, of the complainants, ie. their speaking of Spanish. 70 The Tribunal is further of the view that for the purposes of s 19 of the Act Mr Arndell's actions constituted the refusal of a service, and-or the provision of a service on discriminatory terms. Firstly, requiring Mr and Ms Moreira to leave the car-yard constituted refusal of a service. Even though Mr Arndell may have formed the view that a deal could not be made, to require the complainants to leave pre-empted the possibility that his assessment may have been incorrect. Further, Mr Arndell was only prepared to provide the service on a discriminatory term, ie. that the complainants should speak in English. 71 The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that Mr Arndells conduct constituted a breach of s 7 and 19 of the Act. 72 This complaint, however, is not lodged against Mr Arndell. The Tribunal must therefore further determine whether the respondent, Mr Arndell's employer, is liable for his actions. The provisions of s 53 are relevant here. 73 Mr Arndell's employer is liable for Mr Arndell's actions, according to s 53, unless it did not authorise him to do the act. In the Tribunal's view, the section requires the employer to actively not authorise, rather than to argue that inaction on its part constitutes a lack of authorisation. This view follows that taken in interpretation of this, and the equivalent Commonwealth, sections of the Act. The Tribunal must therefore examine whether, expressly or by implication, Mr Arndell's training and supervision directed him not to treat people less favourably on the grounds of their race. 74 Mr McLaughlin gave evidence, which Mr Arndell confirmed, that the respondent had a strong policy of being customer focussed. However, Mr McLaughlin also gave evidence that the respondent had no written anti-discrimination policy, and that no training was given to employees about discrimination legislation. There was no evidence that the respondent expressly did not authorise Mr Arndell to discriminate on the ground of race. What the Tribunal must determine is whether the employer, by implication, did not authorise the doing of such an act. 75 If the employer had a non-discrimination policy, or had trained its staff on the provisions of the legislation, it would not be difficult for the Tribunal to find that, by implication, the employer had not authorised Mr Arndell's actions. However, neither of these things occurred. 76 The evidence of Mr McLaughlin and Mr Arndell as to the company being customer-focussed was in very general terms, and no specific references were made to race discrimination. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that, whilst it accepts the evidence of customer focus, this does not constitute an implication by the company that its employees should not discriminate on the ground of race. The Tribunal finds that the respondent is liable for Mr Arndell's actions pursuant to s 53 of the Act. Damages 77 Having found that the respondent discriminated against the complainants on the grounds of their race in breach of the Act, the Tribunal must turn its attention to what orders it should make. In the circumstances it regards an award of damages as appropriate. 78 Both complainants were discriminated against in this incident, and it is appropriate - in the Tribunal's view- to make a separate award of damages to each complainant. Whilst according to the evidence of the respondent's staff Ms Moreira demonstrated a larger amount of anger and upset as a result of the incidents, it is the Tribunal's view that Mr Moreira is entitled to the higher award. It was his inability to speak English, and his choice to speak Spanish with his daughter, which caused the discrimination. He also gave more evidence of being depressed or saddened by what had occurred. Ms Moreira, while being angry at the time, seemed to take it more in her stride. Further, it was Mr Moreira who was considering purchasing the vehicle. 79 Neither complainant sought medical assistance or brought medical evidence to the Tribunal. This was unfortunate from their point of view, because it would probably - if supportive - have resulted in higher damages awards. Ms Moreira did give evidence of her father's lack of confidence as a result of the incident, and the Tribunal has taken this into account. 80 Neither complainant made any claim for specific damages, so the Tribunal has only considered general damages. 81 The incident, whilst inappropriate and unacceptable, was a brief one, and did not appear to have had a major lasting effect on either complainant. Mr Moreira gave evidence that this hearing, and the conciliation conference, brought bad memories of the incident back to him, but did not suggest that it impacted on him on a continual basis. 82 In all of the above circumstances the Tribunal is of the view that the respondent should pay $4000.00 damages to Mr Moreira, and $2000.00 damages to Ms Moreira. Conclusion 83 This incident was most regrettable, and should not occur in the multi-cultural Australian society of today. There are many Australians whose first language is not English, and people should be entitled to communicate in their first language when they choose. In fact, interpreters are provided to facilitate such communication in many circumstances at government expense. 84 Mr Arndell's refusal to accept this, and his consequent actions, were unacceptable as well as unlawful. Whilst the Tribunal has found Peter Robert Motors Pty Limited vicariously liable for Mr Arndell's actions, there is no evidence to suggest that this is anything more than an isolated incident caused by one former member of staff. 85 It is unfortunate that, in today's society, it was necessary for Mr and Ms Moreira to bring this complaint. They should not have been treated in this way. It is hoped that the damages awarded will in some way compensate them for such inappropriate treatment. Orders 1. The Tribunal finds that Mr Nestor and Ms Varina Moreira (the complainants) were discriminated against on the ground of their race in breach of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act by Peter Robert Motors Pty Limited (the respondent). 2. The Tribunal orders the respondent to pay $4000.00 damages to the first complainant, and $2000.00 damages to the second complainant, on or before 28 days from the date of publication of this decision. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.