Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Bijay Nath-Chowdhury sued a Metro-affiliated supermarket for $15,000, alleging discrimination, intimidation, and abuse of authority by its manager.
   
• Quebec's Price Accuracy Policy formed the backdrop of the dispute, since it governs how retailers must correct price-scanning errors.
   
• Two falafel boxes had already been refunded before the manager asked the plaintiff to return or pay for one, citing the policy's single-item limit.
   
• Discrimination claims under the Charter require proof of a prohibited distinction that impairs a recognized right, with no need to show intent.
   
• Video surveillance footage was unavailable because the plaintiff's preservation request was misdirected to the franchisor rather than the store.
   
• Ultimately, the Tribunal found no evidence of differential treatment and dismissed the claim, ordering the plaintiff to pay costs.

Facts of the case

Bijay Nath-Chowdhury, a Montreal-born man of South Asian descent, visited a Metro-branded supermarket, Alimentation Gajan Rajasingam inc., with his mother on May 26, 2025. He bought two identical boxes of falafel priced at approximately $2 each. At checkout, he discovered the price charged was higher than the price advertised in-store and went to the customer service counter, where an employee confirmed the error and refunded both boxes. As he was leaving, a second employee, who identified himself as the manager, called him back and asked him to pay for or return one of the two boxes, explaining that the store's price-accuracy policy only entitles a customer to a free item on one unit, not both. Nath-Chowdhury asked to see the written policy, which the manager declined to produce. He chose not to argue further and left with both boxes. He later emailed the address consumer@metro.ca asking that video footage of the incident be preserved, and separately filed a complaint with Quebec's human rights commission, which was not upheld. His mother, Bandana Nath, provided a written statement describing the encounter as frightening and confusing. The store's owner, Gajan Rajasingam, was not present during the incident but confirmed the price-accuracy policy is posted at every checkout, and testified that the footage was no longer available because the preservation request reached the Metro franchisor rather than the store itself, arriving 37 days after the incident — beyond the store's 30-day retention window.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The case turned on Quebec's price-accuracy policy for retailers using scanner technology, which provides that when a scanned price exceeds the advertised price, the lower price governs: if the item costs $15 or less, the merchant must give it to the customer for free; if it costs more, the merchant corrects the price and applies a $15 discount. Where the same pricing error affects identical items in a single transaction, only one item is treated this way — the store corrects the others without additional compensation. Nath-Chowdhury also invoked sections 4, 10, and 49 of Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which protect dignity and reputation, prohibit discrimination based on grounds including race and disability, and entitle a victim of unlawful interference with a Charter right to compensation, with punitive damages available where the interference is both unlawful and intentional.

Reasoning and analysis

The Tribunal applied the test for discrimination set out by the Supreme Court in Québec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Bombardier Inc.: a claimant must show a distinction, exclusion, or preference, based on a prohibited ground, that impairs the right to equality — intent to discriminate need not be proven. The court declined to weigh Bandana Nath's written statement, since it was drafted by her son in a language she does not speak fluently and added nothing relevant to the allegations. On the missing video footage, the Tribunal found no basis for drawing an adverse inference against the Supermarket, since the preservation request had gone to the wrong corporate entity rather than the store. Nath-Chowdhury did not allege that the manager raised his voice or used inappropriate language; his case rested on the manager's insistence on the one-item limit despite an earlier refund, and on the manager's more courteous handling of a Caucasian bystander who tried to intervene. The Tribunal held these facts did not establish differential treatment, intimidation, or abuse of authority, characterizing the manager's conduct as a good-faith attempt to correct a cashier's application of the price-accuracy policy. It noted that once Nath-Chowdhury declined to pay for or return the item, the manager let him leave without further incident. His subjective sense of having been discriminated against was not, in the Tribunal's view, supported by objective evidence.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Tribunal dismissed Nath-Chowdhury's claim in full, finding he had not proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the Supermarket's manager discriminated against him, intimidated him, or abused his authority. Because the discrimination claim failed, the Tribunal did not need to address the damages that would otherwise have been in issue. Alimentation Gajan Rajasingam inc. was the successful party, and Nath-Chowdhury was ordered to pay it $374 in legal costs.