The change in background colour is not significant with respect to the meaning of the text. It is an anomaly.
Racial profiling takes place when someone of one colour stops and questions another person of a different colour and does this because the person being stopped and questioned is of a specific colour and for this reason alone, is presumed to being committing or having committed a wrongdoing.
The following incident occurred in the City of Brampton, Ontario, a
small community just west of Toronto .
The Peel
Law Association (PLA) operates a lawyers’ lounge and library in the Brampton
Court House. The policy of the lounge and library is that only lawyers and law
students are permitted to use the facilities. Paralegals and the public
are not. A sign posted on the premises stated “lawyers only”.
The
librarian, Ms. Firth, has a primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with
the policy. Ms. Firth approached three blacks on May 16, 2008 who had
entered the lounge. They were; Selwyn Pieters, Brian Noble and Paul Waldon who
is a law student employed by Pieters. They were wearing business suits. Ms Firth
asked them to confirm that they were lawyers or law students (and therefore
admissible to the lounge). They actually had a right to be in the lounge
and they were in the court house that day since they were acting as counsel in a
proceeding being heard in that court house.
Shortly after Ms. Firth
approached the three men, Mr. Pieters stated
explicitly to Ms. Firth, in the presence of Mr. Noble and Mr. Waldron that this
was an incident of racial profiling.
After some discussion,
Mr. Pieters and Ms. Firth agreed to exchange
business cards. Ms. Firth went to her office in the library to obtain a
business card to give it to him. Mr. Pieters followed her there. He then then proceeded to a courtroom to
retrieve a business card for Ms. Firth. Ms. Firth followed him there. Mr.
Pieters testified at the hearing that he felt Ms. Firth’s decision to accompany
him to the court room while he retrieved his business card was unnecessary,
treated him as suspect and subjected him to further humiliation.
The librarian had
the right to question anyone who entered the lounge no matter what colour their
skin was but what the three men complained about was that Ms. Firth singled
them out simply because they were black.
The
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the Tribunal) reviewed the complaint of
Pieters and Noble on December 3, 2010. In the decision, the Vice chair of
the Tribunal found that Ms. Firth had
discriminated against the two complainants, Selwyn Pieters and Brian Noble, in the provision of
services, goods and facilities on the basis of race and colour, contrary to section 1 of the Human
Rights Code.
Section 1 of the Code provides as follows:
Every person has a
right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities,
without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour,
ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital
status, family status or disability.
The Vice Chair ordered that the PLA and
Ms. Firth were liable to both black men for a compensatory award of
$2,000 to each of the two men for violation of their inherent right to be free
from discrimination and for injury to their dignity, feelings and self-respect.
The
PLA and Ms. Firth requested an order from the Divisional Court quashing the decision of
the Tribunal and an order substituting a decision dismissing the two black
men’s applications before the Tribunal. The Divisional Court hears appeals from
Tribunals and lower courts. It is the buffer between Tribunals and lower courts
and the Ontario Court of Appeal. The two
men argued that that the decision of the Vice-Chair was reasonable and correct
on the facts and law and that it should not be overturned by the Divisional Court .
The
evidence from Ms. Firth was that she routinely, at least 8 – 12 times a week,
requests identification from individuals and asks those who are not lawyers or
law students to leave the lounge and library. She said that other staff do
likewise. She has made identification requests to hundreds of people
since 2004. She testified that in the days prior to the incident, she had
requested identification from several persons she identified as being White.
Earlier that same day, she had asked for identification from a lawyer who had
visited the lounge/library on numerous occasions. This lawyer became
upset about her request for identification. Ms. Firth described the
lawyer as being White. Other witnesses confirmed that Ms. Firth regularly
asked persons she and other staff did not recognize, for identification.
The Vice-Chair of the Tribunal accepted these facts.
Ms.
Firth had the authority to ask for ID from people who came into the lounge, to
show that they are a lawyer or a law student no matter what colour they were in
order to make sure that they were lawyers and/or law students and no one else. The
only concern I have is that I am not convinced that she should have followed
Mr. Pieters into the court room. Her authority to question or demand ID from
anyone ended at the door exiting the lounge. Perhaps she wanted to make sure
that the ID he was going to present to her was really from his overcoat he left
in the court room. I can appreciate her concern with respect to his overcoat
because lawyers and law students can hang them up in the lounge rather than
leave them on a bench in a court room. Maybe she wanted to make sure that it
was his ID he was going to give to her and no one else’s ID.
The
Vice-Chair ruled that the lack of a credible and rational explanation for why Ms.
Firth stopped to question the individuals as and when she did, along with “all
of the surrounding circumstances”, was sufficient for him to infer that the
decision was “in some measure, because of their race and colour.”
Other
than her following Mr. Pieters into the court room, I can’t see where she was
racial profiling the three Black men when they entered the lounge.
The
Vice Chair noted that Ms. Firth had indicated that she knew everyone else in
the lounge at the relevant time was a lawyer and that is why she approached the
respondents. However, that was not true, given that one individual in the
lounge was not, in fact, a lawyer, and one lawyer in the lounge had never been
there before. The Vice-Chair also found that Ms. Firth was “blunt and
demanding” in the way she approached the two Black complainants and Mr. Waldron
(who didn’t file a complaint), which he held to be consistent with research on
patterns of racial profiling. Certainly lying in court or at a tribunal hearing
is not a good way to get the results one desires.
Although
the Vice-Chair found discrimination in the approach made by Ms. Firth to the
respondents, he rejected their allegations that following Mr. Pieters to
obtain his business card, constituted an act of discrimination.
The Human
Rights Code establishes
that the complainant in a human rights complaint bears the enormous burden of
proving a prima facie case of discrimination. A prima facie case of
discrimination “is one which covers the allegations made and which, if they are
believed, is complete and sufficient to justify a verdict in the complainant’s
favour, in the absence of an answer from the respondent.”
In order to prove
a prima facie case of discrimination, there must be
evidence to support the following findings:
a. a distinction or differential treatment;
b. arbitrariness based on a prohibited ground;
c. a disadvantage; and
d. a causal nexus between the
arbitrary distinction based on a prohibited ground and the disadvantage suffered.
The Divisional Court hearing the appeal of
the PLA and Ms. Firth quoted in part from Supreme Court ruling which said in
part;
“There is a difference between discrimination and a
distinction. Not every distinction is discriminatory. It is not
enough to impugn an employer’s conduct on the basis that what was done had a
negative impact on an individual in a protected group. Such membership
alone does not, without more, guarantee access to a human rights remedy.
It is the link between that group membership and the arbitrariness of the
disadvantaging criterion or conduct, either on its face or in its impact that
triggers the possibility of a remedy. And it is the claimant who bears
this threshold burden.” unquote
What this meant with respect
to the appeal of the PLA and Ms. Firth is that discrimination is what follows
in some instances because of the distinction between two persons such as
between a white person and a black person. It wasn’t enough to impugn the
librarian’s conduct on the basis that was done had a negative impact on an
individual in as protected group. Her actions would have had the same negative
impact on any white persons that she demanded present to her ID showing that he
or she was a lawyer or law student. Being Black doesn’t automatically guarantee
success to a human rights remedy. It is what occurs between the two different
people such as the arbitrariness of the conduct against the other person that
triggers the remedy sought
At
all times, the complainant bears the burden of proving discrimination on a
balance of probabilities. While the complainant is not required to prove
intent or motive, “mere speculation” as to the existence of bias is
insufficient to establish a prima
facie case of discrimination.
It
is only when a prima facie case of discrimination has been
demonstrated that the burden shifts to the respondent to provide a
non-discriminatory explanation for the conduct. As such, while the
respondent bears the onus of proving any defence(s) it wishes to raise, the
respondent is never required to disprove discrimination per se: “If a claimant can prove
the existence of discrimination on a balance of probabilities and the
responding party fails to prove a statutory defence or exemption, then the
claimant will have proved a violation of the Human Rights Code.
The
crux of the Tribunal’s conclusion that a prima
facie case of discrimination
was established was rooted was as follows;
There
were a number of persons in the lounge on May 16 who would have been unknown to
the personal respondent. The applicants and Mr. Waldron were the only
Black men and the only persons that Ms. Firth chose to question. She had
interrupted her planned trip to the robing room to stop and question the three
Black men and proceeded to do so in an aggressive and demanding manner.
No one else in the lounge was questioned, including two White women and another
racialized male who would have been unknown to the personal respondent.
Those facts were sufficient to require Ms. Firth to provide an explanation for her
action to support her position that the decision to question the applicants was
not tainted by race or colour.
The
basis upon which the Vice-Chair found a prima
facie case of discrimination
rests on his findings that there were a number of persons in the lounge on May
16 who would have been unknown to Ms. Firth. The three aforementioned men
were the only Black men in the lounge at that particular time of the morning and
the only persons Ms. Firth chose to question. She interrupted her planned trip to the robing room to stop and question
the three Black men and proceeded to do so in an aggressive and demanding
manner. No one else in the lounge was questioned, including two White women and
another man of a different colour who would have also been unknown to Ms. Firth.
However,
it is noteworthy that the Vice-Chair made findings of fact that were
inconsistent with these conclusions. They were;
Firstly,
there was clear evidence, which the Vice-Chair accepted, as to why Ms. Firth
approached the complainants for identification rather than anyone else.
In particular, that they were situated nearest to the door from which she
entered the lounge. Accordingly, they were the first persons she would
have encountered when she stopped in the lounge on her way to the robing
room. The Vice-Chair noted the layout of the lounge and where persons
were situated when the incident occurred.
The
lounge was not busy at the time of the incident with perhaps a total of twenty
persons present. The applicants were seated in an area of the lounge just
outside the doors to the library. Mr. Pieters was in a chair talking on the
telephone to his assistant, Michael Roberts. Mr. Noble and Mr. Waldron
were on a sofa perpendicular to where Mr. Pieters was sitting; Mr. Noble was closest to
Mr. Pieters and Mr. Waldron was closest to
the library door.
Ms.
Firth came through the library doors and approached the applicants and Mr.
Waldron. The Vice-Chair appears to have ignored the fact of the complainants’
location when holding that “the applicants and Mr. Waldron were the only Black
men and the only persons the personal respondent chose to question” as a factor
in establishing a prima facie case of discrimination by Ms. Firth.
As to the fact
that Ms. Firth did not confirm the others’ identification, the Vice-Chair
stated in his ruling;
“I find the
personal respondent’s (Firth) contention that her focus on Mr. Pieters accounts for why she did not confirm
the others’ identification to be credible. The fact that her overall credibility
was ‘undermined’ by her explanation that she knew everyone else in the room to
be lawyers which was found not to be credible, does not change the finding that
her focus was on Mr. Pieters at the time, and that this focus was a
credible explanation for the fact that she did not check the identification of
other persons in the lounge.” unquote
The
three-judge panel of the Divisional
Court ruled;
“Clearly,
the actions of Ms. Firth on the day in question had to be viewed in the context
of the above-noted policy, her job responsibilities in regard to this, her
established practice to ask for identification, the incident that had occurred
earlier that day and the fact that the complainants were the first people she
encountered upon entering the library. In those circumstances, there was
insufficient evidence for the Vice-Chair to determine that Ms. Firth stopping
on the way to the robing room and questioning the respondents constituted
differential treatment.(Racial profiling) Further, even if Ms. Firth was aggressive
and demanding to Mr. Pieters initially,
such conduct does not establish differential treatment since it is undisputed that
her requests to others for identification have also resulted in contentious
situations.
“Moreover, the
Vice-Chair’s conclusion that “These facts are sufficient to require the
respondents to provide an explanation for their actions to support their
position that the decision to question the applicants was not tainted by race
or colour.” in effect, wrongfully reverses the onus of proof. (since the onus
is on the person who files the complaint) By
improperly reversing the burden of proof, the Tribunal placed her in the
difficult position of trying to prove a negative, namely, that her conduct in
the performance of her routine duties was not motivated by race and colour. The undisputed evidence was that Ms. Firth’s duties included
asking for identification to confirm the admissibility of persons in the lounge
and library. Her position at the hearing was that she acted on this
occasion in the context of those duties.
“Ms.
Firth had authority and power under the Trespass to Property Act to stop
persons, request identification and preclude individuals (who had no right to
be there) from entering the lounge and library.
“These
principles may well apply in some circumstances to matters involving human
rights. However, in this case, the Vice-Chair used the police cases in a
context in which they do not apply. While (the) police have authority,
power and control over citizens, Ms. Firth is a librarian, employed to provide
library services to lawyers, and she had no legal authority or power to detain,
pursue or investigate the complainants. I agree with the applicants (Ms.
Firth and the PLA) that the reliance by the Vice-Chair on law enforcement cases
was misconceived.
“While
racial profiling may be established by circumstantial evidence or by inference
drawn from the evidence, it must still be established. A complainant
cannot merely point to his or her membership in a racialized group and an
unpleasant interaction to establish a prima
facie case of discrimination.
“In
summary, the Tribunal erred in determining there was a prima facie case of discrimination. No
evidence was adduced that was capable of supporting the finding of a distinction
or differential treatment or that any such treatment was motivated by race or
colour. Moreover, by failing to require the complainants to satisfy the
nexus (same) requirement, the Tribunal improperly reversed the burden of proof
placing an impossible onus on the applicants to disprove discrimination.” unquote
Mark
Freiman, a former deputy attorney-general of Ontario and an expert in
discrimination law, who argued the appeal on behalf of the PLA and Ms. Firth,
said that the ruling strikes an important note of caution, which is especially
important in a legal system that views discrimination as subtle, hard to prove,
and even sometimes unconscious and unintentional. He said the court rightly
followed the advice, written by Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Abella when she
ruled that “not every distinction is discriminatory.”
The
Divisional Court
ordered the two Black men that filed their complaint and the Tribunal to pay
legal costs of $20,000 to the librarian and to the Peel Law Association, which
runs the library.
Filing
an unjustified complaint is not unlike stepping on a scorpion to crush it and then
in the process, getting stung.
No comments:
Post a Comment