The Federal Court has set aside a human rights commission decision that dismissed a discrimination complaint brought by a worker against his former employer, Bank of Nova Scotia (Scotiabank).
The court found that the commission breached procedural fairness in its handling of G.C.’s allegations and has ordered a re-investigation by a different investigator.
G.C. worked at Scotiabank for 18 years, with a dozen of those as a mortgage development manager. He identifies as a Black man and alleged that over several years, Scotiabank discriminated against him based on race and colour, contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). According to court documents, G.C. claimed the discrimination began well before the end of his employment and continued through his departure from the organization.
Human rights complaint
The core dispute arose after G.C. filed a human rights complaint alleging he was repeatedly singled out and adversely treated, including being suspended on what he called “discriminatory grounds.” He stated he was effectively prevented from continuing his job because his pay was 100 per cent commission-based, leaving him with no income during that suspension.
He also alleged that the bank assigned him unrealistic sales targets without sufficient support, denied him an assistant while granting the same to his white co-workers, refused to provide him with certain performance appraisals, and blocked him from attending a high-achievers conference despite meeting the criteria.
‘Not eligible for rehire’
After G.C. resigned, he said Scotiabank coded him as “not eligible for rehire,” placed an alert with a banking-sector investigation office and provided damaging references that undermined his chances of obtaining new employment in the financial industry.
In his words, as cited in the complaint form, “management has embarked on character assassination, defamation, and slander and barred me from gaining employment with other banks.”
The commission initially reviewed G.C.’s complaint but dismissed large portions of it for reasons linked to time limits under the CHRA. It also determined that the remaining allegations did not warrant further scrutiny by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Specifically, the commission wrote that it would “deal only with the September 2011 to April 25, 2012, allegations in the complaint because the other allegations in the complaint spanning from November 2007 to the summer of 2011 are separate and apart from the more recent allegations and do not form a continuous pattern of discrimination.” It then dismissed the remaining allegations, finding that “having regard to all the circumstances of the complaint, further inquiry is not warranted.”
G.C. applied for judicial review, arguing the commission made multiple errors. He claimed it incorrectly severed his allegations into two time periods, failed to investigate core parts of his complaint and refused to consider events that occurred after his departure from the bank — namely, the “not eligible for rehire” code and the alleged “BCPIO alert” that could impede his career elsewhere. He also contended the commission did not properly account for evidence that, in his view, showed a continuous pattern of racial discrimination over several years, nor did it give him a fair chance to share additional information.
Investigation not ‘thorough’
The court agreed with G.C.’s position that the commission’s investigation was not sufficiently thorough. According to the ruling, “the investigation was not ‘thorough’ as required by the jurisprudence,” and the investigator “did not adequately investigate core aspects of the complaint.”
Despite G.C. providing additional submissions and documentation, the investigation report largely focused on the last few months of his employment, excluding much of his evidence about ongoing differential treatment.
The court described several specific concerns, including the investigator’s decision to exclude issues related to post-employment references, alleged character assassination and alleged refusal to rehire. The decision noted that these allegations could potentially fall under section 7 of the CHRA, which prohibits discrimination in employment — including the refusal to employ or continue to employ a person — on prohibited grounds such as race or colour.
In rejecting the commission’s findings, the court cited the need for “a neutral and thorough” investigation and stated, “I find that the Commission breached procedural fairness and its decision was unreasonable, principally because the investigation did not adequately address core aspects of [G.C.’s] complaint.” It added: “While these findings are sufficient to warrant returning the matter to the Commission, I will briefly address the remaining procedural fairness allegations, for completeness.”
Supplementary report from investigator
The court also noted the importance of allowing G.C. to respond to a final supplementary report that the investigator prepared after speaking with him. According to the court, G.C. “did not receive the Supplementary Investigation Report,” meaning he had no chance to provide submissions on the conclusions drawn about his case before the commission dismissed it.
As a result, the court ruled that the commission’s dismissal must be set aside and the complaint remitted for a fresh investigation by a different investigator. The decision stated: “This application for judicial review is allowed and the Commission’s … decision is set aside. The matter is returned to the Commission for reinvestigation by a different investigator and a new decision.” The court stopped short of ordering the complaint directly to a tribunal, emphasizing instead that the commission is responsible for deciding whether a complaint should be referred onward for a full hearing.
Scotiabank’s response
In its arguments, Scotiabank maintained that the commission properly considered the issues, emphasizing that it “conducted an in-depth analysis” of the allegations and acted in a procedurally fair manner. The bank further contended that G.C. had simply disagreed with the outcome, and that no reviewable error had been established. The court, however, took a different view, requiring a re-investigation on the basis that “the Investigator did not adequately investigate core aspects of the complaint, and may have required further information from the parties in order to make a recommendation.”
At present, the matter is returning to the commission, where a new investigator will examine the allegations in full and issue a fresh recommendation on whether G.C.’s complaint should proceed to a hearing before the tribunal.
For more information, see Curtis v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 2025 FC 207 (CanLII).