兰里一间餐厅酒吧，在2011年12月拒绝让三名印裔顾客进入，保安人员还在餐厅门口发生冲突，卑诗人权委员会(BC Human Right Tribunal)日前判决餐厅涉及种族歧视，须赔偿3万元。
2011年12月9日，在兰里88道2万号路段的兰里鲨鱼俱乐部(Langley Shark Club)，三位印裔民众欲进入参加他们亲戚的庆祝毕业晚宴，不过，门口保安却不让他们进入。印裔民众说，当时餐厅并不拥挤，门口保安也让白人顾客入内，三人于是在门口与保安发生争吵。
三印裔民众之一的Surinderjit Rai当时拿出手机，把名为Andrew Schmah的保安人员容貌拍下，Schmah于是上前勾住Rai的头部，要求删除照片。对于这个肢体冲突，Schmah後来承认攻击罪名，除被判一年缓刑，还得接受控制脾气的训练课程。
卑诗人权委员会听过三位印裔民众、餐厅经理及两名保安人员的证词後，发现三印裔民众的说法始终一贯且较可信。史玛指控有人对他威胁还要拿枪的说法，则被判定毫不可信。最终，这间餐厅酒吧被判处，须对三名被拒入门的客人，各赔偿1万元，因为伤害了他们的自尊。
对于判决结果，餐厅表示失望，发出声明表示，事发前餐厅接受了印裔顾客的订位，晚宴的印裔客人在进出餐厅时也都没有发生事端。餐厅暂时未决定是否提出上诉。
attend their human rights tribunal in 某地 on April 30, 2013 to argue a complaint against the x-Club.
The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has found the Shark Club of Langley racially discriminated against three Indo-Canadian patrons when they were denied entry to the restaurant for a graduation party two years ago.
Surinderjit Rai, Manjit Gill and Manjinder Gill have each been awarded $10,000 for injury to dignity and self-respect, which occurred on the night of Dec. 9, 2011.
According to facts laid out in the tribunal’s decision, the three arrived 15 minutes late for their reservation and were told they could not join the rest of their 20-person party — already inside.
The group was then told by doorman Andrew Schmah that the restaurant had been reserved for a ticketed party and they could only enter if they purchased a ticket or were on a reservation list for which they were not late.
After offering to purchase tickets for the event and pleading with the doormen to let them in — to no avail — the group asked several Caucasian customers whether they had reservations or tickets for the restaurant and found several cases where that was not the case.
The situation escalated when Rai asked Schmah for his name and, not confident the doorman had been truthful, took a single photograph. Schmah then assaulted Rai and the group called police. Meanwhile the rest of their party had left the restaurant.
Tribunal member Norman Trerise called the facts of the evening “disturbing” and noted Schmah and other respondents on behalf of the Shark Club gave inconsistent testimony in their recollection of the incident.
Trerise found the respondents’ argument that the group was denied entry because Rai lacked proper identification was a fabrication, and if it had been true it did not explain why other members of the group with I.D. were not allowed in. He also found the doormen’s claims that Rai had been belligerent were unsubstantiated.
“I find that the combination of the Rai group’s persistent inability to access the Shark Club, the continued refusal to admit them while allowing Caucasian patrons unrestricted access, the fabrication by the respondent’s witnesses of the reason for denying them entrance and the physical assault on Mr. Rai, all in the absence of alleged provocation, satisfy me that the Rai group’s race, colour and ancestry were factors in the actions of Mr. Schmah,” Trerise wrote.
He continued to state that the complainants testified they were “utterly embarrassed” by the public nature of the discrimination and that the “defence mounted by the Shark Club, essentially denying the events that occurred and suggesting entirely unrelated and innocent circumstances,” only added to the distress felt by the Rai group.
Trerise also rejected the Shark Club’s suggestion that $500 to $3,000 would be an appropriate financial reward.
“It would be a rare person indeed who would, in my opinion, be adequately compensated for racial discrimination of the sort experience in this case by an award of $3,000 or less,” he said.