CASE INDEX

Discrimination in employment

• An Aboriginal woman was subjected to racially motivated monitoring by managers, the retention of secret files on her, racial slurs, jokes and stereotyping (Pitawanakwat v. Canada)
• An India-born research scientist endured differential treatment, denial of promotion, denial of participation in conferences, refusal of requests for funds and summer assistants (Grover v. National Research Council of Canada)
• “Ghettoizing” visible minorities in a government department into lower level jobs and particular types of jobs, and failing to provide visible minorities with management-related training (National Capital Alliance on Race Relations v. Canada)
• An Aboriginal man endured differential treatment, racial comments, jokes and slurs over the duration of his career (Swan v. Canadian Forces)
• Racial harassment by managers and co-workers of only visible minority man in the division and differential treatment by singling him out for discipline and eventually termination (Gannon v. Canadian Pacific Ltd.)
• Mohawk woman sexually and racially harassed by supervisor, forcing her to take sick leave (“Harassment through offensive comments”)
• Refusal of employer to offer complainant, who could not obtain security clearance, a permanent job because of a policy that forbade hiring people from countries posing a threat to Canada (“Security clearance was unfairly denied”)
• Termination of employment on the basis that pilots and agents had difficulty understanding claimant’s English (“Comments about spoken English led to complaint”)
• Claimant and other Black employees subjected to racially offensive remarks, name-calling and accusations of being a liar (“Racial remarks and insulting behaviour prompted complaint”)

Discrimination in services

• Refusal of permanent resident status by the Canadian Consulate officer, who insisted that certificates not available in India be provided (Canada v. Menghani)
• Luggage of Métis passengers searched by a bus driver who asked if they had been drinking (“Demeaning treatment when bus driver acted on stereotypes”)
• A visible minority woman was accused of fraud, had her citizenship questioned and the police were called when she tried to open a bank account (“Banking personnel behaved inappropriately”)
• Bank customer subjected to demeaning comments based on negative stereotypes about blacks (“Stereotypes demean bank customer”)
• A Black man in prison was ridiculed by prison guards about the image of a black Santa Claus painted in an office window (“Discrimination in prison not acceptable”)

Discrimination on more than one ground

• Termination of a 47-year-old Black woman after her position was eliminated, forcing her to accept a lower-level position. A job similar to the complainant’s eliminated job was filled by someone younger and white, as were other jobs for which she applied (“Age, sex, race and colour”)
• A 50-year-old woman of Japanese descent was subjected to racist and sexist jokes as well as insulting comments about older workers (“Sex, age and national or ethnic origin”)
• Only non-white woman in her area was harassed, denied sick leave benefits and fired because of her sex and race and because of a perceived mental disability. Supervisor imitated employee’s accent, made faces at her, hid work from her, and introduced mistakes into her computer work. Employee was not allowed to take breaks at the same time as white colleagues (“Disability, sex, and colour”)
• Racial slurs and comments about Italians were made by the supervisor. The employee was unfairly fired after being refused coffee breaks, use of the telephone and entrance into the office. No attempt was made to accommodate the claimant’s disability which resulted from an injury received on the job. (“Disability and national or ethnic origin”)

Employers’ responsibilities

• Only after a complaint was filed did the employer acknowledge problem in workplace and take action to ensure a harassment-free work environment by providing employee anti-harassment training (“Pay attention to workplace behaviour”)
• Company failed to take action against racist comments, prevent discrimination or mitigate its effects, and inform employees of its anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies (Rodovanovic v. VIA Rail Canada Inc.)
• Company took necessary steps to prevent discrimination, such as having in place a policy that was communicated to employees, quickly investigating complaints and reprimanding employees involved in discriminatory acts (François v. Canadian Pacific Rail Ltd.)
• Employer failed to carry out a real investigation and to deal sensitively with the effects of the incident of racism. Instead, the matter was treated as a harmless joke (Hinds v. Canada)
• Manager took immediate steps to deal with an employee’s complaint but did not provide a letter of apology (“Act quickly to end the discrimination”)
• Managers were aware of harassment of Black staff members by white staff but did nothing to stop it (“Prevent future discrimination”)

Remedies

• The National Research Council was ordered to prevent future discrimination, publish a public letter of apology and appoint the claimant to a management position with financial compensation (Grover v. National Research Council of Canada)
• The Correctional Service was ordered to rehire claimant at a higher level, apologize in writing, pay three years lost wages and compensate for injury to feelings and self-respect (Uzoaba v. Canada)
• A government department was ordered to pay for lost wages with interest and for injury to self-esteem and to write a letter of apology (“Reimburse lost wages”)