An Ontario tribunal has dismissed a discrimination claim by a former employee who alleged that his employer made derogatory comments about individuals from Newfoundland during a meeting. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) concluded that the applicant did not prove on a balance of probabilities that the employer’s conduct amounted to discrimination under the Human Rights Code.
R.C., originally from Newfoundland, was employed as an electrical assembler at Haakon Industries in Kingston, Ont. In June 2019, his supervisor, C.M., announced upcoming shift changes during a team meeting. R.C. expressed concerns about working with a particular employee, alleging that the employee was “a racist” who had made unwelcome comments about “Newfies.” He also requested to remain on the same shift as his carpool partner.
Following the team meeting, R.C. met with C.M. and the human resources manager, C.d.O., to discuss his allegations. It was agreed that R.C. would meet with the employee to address his concerns. The meeting took place, the employee apologized, and both parties shook hands. The employer considered the matter resolved.
However, when the shift changes were implemented, R.C. was assigned to a different shift from his carpool partner and was not placed on the same shift as the employee he had complained about. Upset with this outcome, R.C. approached C.M. on one or two occasions and directed profanity towards him. Subsequently, the employer decided to terminate R.C.’s employment.
R.C. alleged that during the termination meeting, when C.M. briefly left the room to retrieve his tools, C.d.O. made discriminatory comments. According to R.C., she stated that “everyone jokes about Newfies” and that it was his right to go to the Human Rights Tribunal but “Newfies had no rights at the Human Rights Tribunal.”
The employer denied these allegations. Both C.d.O. and C.M. testified that during their meetings with R.C., they took his concerns seriously. C.d.O. stated that she told R.C. she was unsure if calling someone a “Newfie” was considered racism under the Human Rights Code but acknowledged that using the term in a derogatory manner was unacceptable in the workplace. She emphasized that R.C. was within his rights to contact the Human Rights Tribunal.
In assessing the credibility of the witnesses, adjudicator Amanda Connolley found inconsistencies in R.C.’s testimony. “The applicant’s evidence was not particularly reliable,” she noted, pointing out that his account of the alleged comments varied across different statements and submissions. In contrast, the testimonies of C.d.O. and C.M. were consistent and credible.
“I find that [C.d.O.] made statements to the applicant to the effect that she wasn’t sure being called a ‘Newfie’ was a racist comment in the defined term and that she wasn’t sure the allegations could fall under the Human Rights Tribunal,” Connolley wrote in her decision.
The tribunal concluded that R.C. did not suffer any disadvantage or adverse impact due to the comments made by the employer. “The applicant has not demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that he was adversely impacted by the comments made by [C.d.O.] during a meeting in June 2019,” the decision stated.
Furthermore, the tribunal noted that R.C. acknowledged the term “Newfie” is not inherently racist and can be used as a term of endearment among friends. He also confirmed that C.d.O. did not discourage him from filing an application with the Human Rights Tribunal.
As a result, the tribunal found that R.C. did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination. “I have determined that the applicant has not met the second step of the three-step test outlined in Moore,” Connolley concluded, referring to the Supreme Court of Canada’s test for prima facie discrimination.
For HR professionals and employment lawyers, this case underscores the importance of addressing employee complaints seriously and ensuring open communication. Employers should handle discussions about potential discrimination carefully, especially when uncertain if certain terms or behaviours fall under the Human Rights Code. Misinterpretations or misstatements could potentially lead to legal claims.
The decision also highlights the need for clear policies and training regarding respectful workplace conduct. Employers should educate staff on the appropriate use of language and the impact it can have on colleagues from different backgrounds. Prompt and effective resolution of workplace disputes can mitigate risks and promote a positive work environment.
The HRTO’s dismissal of R.C.’s application reinforces the principle that to establish discrimination, an applicant must demonstrate they suffered a disadvantage or adverse impact and that a protected characteristic was a factor in that impact.
The application was dismissed.
For more information, see Cribb v. Haakon Industries, 2024 HRTO 1608 (CanLII).
