Grievance Case Summary - G-548

The Grievor, an Indo-Canadian member, was placed on an anti-corruption team tasked with investigating Indo-Canadian targets. The Respondent held a private meeting with the Grievor. The record indicates that he did so, in part, because he believed Indo-Canadians had big social circles. At the meeting, the Respondent asked the Grievor if he knew any targets, and queried if the Grievor was comfortable working on the investigation. The Grievor viewed the meeting as a discriminatory act, and a very painful attack on his integrity. The Respondent viewed it as a courtesy, though he conceded that no one had checked to see if there was a link between the Grievor and a target. It was also clear that nobody else was singled out for a similar meeting.

The Grievor filed a Level I grievance. He argued that he suffered discrimination on the bases of his race and ethnicity. He sought an apology and an explanation. The Respondent said that he held the meeting out of concern for the Grievor, and that he apologized for how the Grievor felt. Yet he insisted the Grievor suffered no prejudice, as the Grievor remained a valued member of the team who was not excluded from anything. A Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. He found that although the Respondent breached subsection 7(b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA), which bars an employer from "differentiating adversely in relation to" an employee on prohibited grounds, the Grievor was not prejudiced. The Grievor raised a Level II grievance.

After the ERC received the file, the Grievor's lawyer furnished additional arguments. He further requested $12,000 in damages for humiliation, loss of self-esteem, and infringement of dignity.

The ERC first addressed several procedural issues. It also opted to consider the Grievor's lawyer's belated arguments, as various authorities permitted it to do so. However, it ultimately found that it had no authority to consider a belated request for monetary damages. The ERC went on to find that the Grievor had made a prima facie case that the Respondent's conduct amounted to a discriminatory practice, contrary to subsection 7(b) of the CHRA. The Grievor alleged, and the Respondent did not disagree, that the Grievor was treated differently in the course of his work solely because of his race and ethnicity, which are prohibited grounds of discrimination. Moreover, the Grievor established that the Respondent's discriminatory activity was harmful and hurtful, or otherwise adverse, and that he suffered resulting prejudice. It did not matter that the Respondent believed he was acting appropriately, or providing a courtesy.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance. It also recommended that he order three remedies, namely, that :

• the Respondent apologize to the Grievor, in writing, for the discriminatory act of singling out the Grievor for special questioning solely because the Grievor was Indo-Canadian;
• the Respondent undergo appropriate human rights training; and,
• the Force review its human rights practices to ensure that the Respondent's discriminatory practice is not a standard or common RCMP practice, and to ensure that members are properly trained in handling situations involving human rights issues.

The Commissioner has rendered a decision in this matter, as summarized by his office:

The Commissioner allowed the grievance.

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC's findings and recommendations on the procedural issues.

The Commissioner also agreed with the ERC that the Respondent discriminated against the Grievor on the basis of his race, national or ethnic origin, in contravention of subsection 7(b) of the CHRA. The Commissioner further agreed with the ERC that the Grievor showed that he was prejudiced by the Respondent's discriminatory conduct.

On the RCMP's behalf, the Commissioner apologized to the Grievor for the Respondent's discriminatory conduct and its impact on the Grievor. As recommended by the ERC, the Commissioner ordered that the Respondent undergo appropriate human rights training, and that the RCMP review its human rights practices to ensure that the Respondent's discriminatory practice is not a standard or common RCMP practice.

The ERC had also recommended that, as part of the RCMP's review of its human rights practices discussed above, the RCMP should ensure that members are properly trained in handling situations that involve human rights issues. The Commissioner agreed that members should receive such training and found it was already the case. The Commissioner noted that a web-based Respectful Workplace course addressing such issues was launched in early 2014. An important part of the RCMP's Gender and Respect Action Plan, this course identifies behaviors that are conducive to fostering a respectful workplace, including the importance of diversity and inclusion. The course covers topics such as discrimination, abuse of authority, and interpersonal deportment. Course participants learn about behaviors that can lead to workplace conflict and/or harassment and the importance of addressing them at the earliest stage possible, in order to minimize the opportunities for such behaviors to go unchecked. The successful completion of the course is mandatory for all employees, cadets and auxiliary constables. Thus, the Commissioner concluded that the training component of the ERC's recommendation was not only satisfied but exceeded by the objectives and curriculum of the Respectful Workplace course.