Nitikman v. Otsu Investments Corp dba Comedy After Dark, 2026 BCHRT 232

Date Issued: November 4, 2026
File: CS-008060

IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE,
RSBC 1996, c. 210 (as amended)

AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

BETWEEN:

Joel Nitikman
COMPLAINANT

AND:

Otsu Investments Corp dba Comedy After Dark
RESPONDENT

REASONS FOR DECISION

Tribunal Member: Edward Takayanagi

On their own behalf: Joel Nitikman, K.C.

On behalf of the Respondent: No one appearing

Date of Hearing: September 16, 2026

Location of Hearing: Videoconference

I        INTRODUCTION

[1]             Joel Nitikman is a Jewish man who attended a comedy show hosted by Otsu Investments Corp dba Comedy After Dark. He says that during the show one of the comedians made several jokes that were antisemitic in nature that he found offensive. He alleges Otsu discriminated against him in services based on religion and race contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code by allowing the comedian to make offensive jokes.

[2]             I heard this matter in a half-day hearing where Mr. Nitikman gave evidence. Mr. Nitikman was also invited to provide written closing submissions which he has done. While I do not refer to it all in my decision, I have considered all the evidence and submissions. This is not a complete recitation of that information, but only that which is necessary to come to my decision.

[3]             For the reasons that follow, I find that Mr. Nitikman has not established discrimination and I dismiss the complaint.

II      PROCEDURAL MATTERS

[4]             The Respondent has not participated in the proceedings at any point in this complaint.

[5]             The Tribunal served the Respondent with the Notice of Complaint Proceeding on September 17, 2025, via courier. The Tribunal received proof of delivery showing the Notice was received and signed for by the Respondent on October 17, 2025. The Respondent did not file a Response to the Complaint. Since that time, the Respondent has not participated in the Tribunal process, has not communicated with the Tribunal, and did not attend the hearing.

[6]             In the circumstances, I am satisfied the Respondent had notice of the complaint and there is no unfairness proceeding in the absence of the Respondent and making my decision based solely on the evidence and submissions of Mr. Nitikman.

III    BACKGROUND

[7]             Because the Respondent did not participate the following background facts are undisputed.

[8]             On November 13, 2022, Mr. Nitikman attended a comedy show at the Respondent’s comedy club. He was attending a bachelor party for his son with a group of his son’s friends. Several comedians performed that evening. Mr. Nitikman recalls that one of the comedians made jokes about Jewish people. He recalls being extremely upset and angry over some of the jokes and thinking at the time that they were racist and demeaning toward Jewish people. Mr. Nitikman, however, does not recall the details of the jokes or what was said. He recalls that the jokes may have been about stereotypes of Jewish people being cheap. He says that during the show the comedian interacted with the audience and when his son’s friends told him they were there for a bachelor party, he started bantering with his son. In the course of bantering, he found out his son is half Jewish. He recalls the comedian remarking that his son was lucky he was only half Jewish, because then he had a choice as to whether to hang out with the Jewish half of his family. Mr. Nitikman found this to be very insulting toward Jewish people.

[9]             After the comedy show Mr. Nitikman and the members of the bachelor party left the club. Mr. Nitikman did not raise his concerns with any of the employees of the Respondent. Mr. Nitikman told his son he felt the jokes were offensive to Jewish people and intended to file a human rights complaint.

IV    ANALYSIS AND DECISION

[10]         The onus is on a complainant to establish their complaint on a balance of probabilities. To establish a prima facie case of discrimination in service, Mr. Nitikman must show that: (1) he has a characteristic protected under the Code (in this case his religion and/or race); (2) he experienced an adverse impact in service; and (3) his protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para 33.

[11]         I accept the undisputed evidence that Mr. Nitikman is a Jewish man and therefore has a protected characteristic. I further accept that the Jewish people have historically been stereotyped, marginalized, and discriminated against.

[12]         However, based on the evidence before me I am unable to find he has established discrimination under the Code. Mr. Nitikman testified that jokes were made, he found them offensive, and they may have been about stereotypes of Jewish people being cheap. Mr. Nitikman testified that he does not recall what the jokes were. He did not take notes and was unable to recall what specific words were spoken. He said the jokes reminded him of childhood taunts he received in his youth. Without more, specifically without the words that were spoken, I am unable to make a finding about whether these jokes were so egregious or virulent that they might constitute discrimination.

[13]         I appreciate that Mr. Nitikman found the jokes to be demeaning and offensive. But it is incumbent on a party alleging discriminatory comments to be able to say what these comments were beyond a vague recollection that they were disrespectful generally. Without the actual words of the jokes, I am unable to make a finding of whether these jokes are discriminatory.  

[14]         I next deal with the one comment Mr. Nitikman was able to recall, that the comedian said his son was lucky he was only half-Jewish because he had a choice as to whether to hang out with the Jewish half of his family.

[15]          When determining whether a comment amounts to discrimination within the meaning of the Code, the Tribunal takes into account all of the circumstances, including the egregiousness or virulence of the comment, the context in which the comment was made, and whether or not the recipient of the comment was a member of a group historically discriminated against: Pardo v. School District No. 43, 2003 BCHRT 71 at para. 12.

[16]         I appreciate that Mr. Nitikman found the comment to be very insulting towards Jewish people and offensive to him personally. Mr. Nitikman says the implication of the joke is that it is bad to be Jewish and preferable to be non-Jewish than Jewish. As I have noted above there is no question that Jewish people are a group that has been historically discriminated against. However, in my view, the comment is not the kind of egregious or virulent slur that attracts the protection of the Code on its face.

[17]         The context in which the comment was made was a comedy performance. The comedian was bantering with Mr. Nitikman’s son during the comedy performance. Mr. Nitikman said this comment did not appear to be part of the comedian’s prepared materials and was a spontaneous remark made during a friendly verbal exchange between the comedian and his son. The comment was directed at his son, and indirectly to Mr. Nitikman and his family. Mr. Nitikman did not call his son as a witness but gave hearsay evidence that his son said he was not offended by the comment or any of the jokes during the comedy performance.

[18]         Viewed in all the context I do not find the comment about Mr. Nitikman’s son being only half-Jewish was so egregious or virulent that it breaches the Code.

[19]          I accept that Mr. Nitikman was offended and felt insulted by the jokes he heard the comedian make at the Respondent’s business. However, this is insufficient to find that the Respondent discriminated. I have no evidence about the actual jokes that were made and the words that were spoken. I am unable to make a finding that the jokes spoken were discriminatory without the actual words of the jokes. Of the one comment that Mr. Nitikman did provide some particulars about, I find that the context of the comment does not rise to the level of discrimination under the Code. Therefore, I find Mr. Nitikman has not established his allegations and has not proven the Respondent discriminated.  

V      CONCLUSION

[20]         The complaint is dismissed under s. 37(1).

Edward Takayanagi
Tribunal Member