The Federal Court has ruled that the Canadian Human Rights Commission unreasonably dismissed harassment complaints from a Correctional Service Canada psychologist who alleged her supervisor yelled at her in front of colleagues, removed her career development plan, excluded her from meetings, and undermined her management decisions based on her gender and South Asian ethnicity.
The court quashed two commission decisions that found the alleged conduct by G.D.’s supervisor and his superior constituted legitimate managerial actions rather than workplace harassment. The rulings send the cases back to a different panel for reconsideration.
Background of the complaints
G.D., who identifies as a woman of South Asian ethnicity and member of the Sikh community, worked as Regional Manager for Institutional Mental Health in the Pacific Region. She reported to S.B., the Regional Director for CSC Health Services, who in turn reported to J.W., the Assistant Deputy Commissioner.
Before S.B. became her supervisor in October 2017, G.D. had worked for CSC for over 20 years with consistently exceptional performance reviews and had a Talent Management Plan in place.
Within two weeks of S.B. taking on his supervisory role, he called G.D. to his office to tell her she lacked the required competencies for her position, providing no explanation for this allegation.
The court noted this “marked the beginning of a course of discriminatory and harassing conduct that ended up derailing her career.”
Alleged harassment incidents
The conduct G.D. complained about included:
- Prohibiting her from communicating with managers or wardens without S.B.’s direct approval
- Removing her Talent Management Plan contrary to Treasury Board policy
- Conducting a mid-year performance review after only supervising her for one month, contrary to policy
- Directing that her year-end performance review be closed as a “refusal”
- Overriding her decisions and management, disregarding her opinions, and excluding her from meetings
- Yelling at her during a bilateral meeting in his office with the door open so colleagues could hear, which “paralyzed the Applicant and caused her to take a doctor-recommended sick leave”
- Staffing her position for six months during a six-week sick leave by hiring two employees from another region
- Making derogatory comments about her disability following her return from sick leave
- Repeatedly contacting her new supervisor to damage her reputation
G.D. alleged S.B. treated her notably differently from male colleagues of similar rank and used his supervisory authority “to undermine and demean her in an effort to push her out of her position.”
She also complained that J.W. failed to act on her concerns about S.B., instead minimizing the issues and misleading G.D. about addressing them.
Commission’s screening decisions
A Human Rights Officer investigated the complaints and found many of G.D.’s allegations may have occurred but constituted adverse differential treatment rather than harassment because the actions were exercises of legitimate managerial authority.
The commission adopted this reasoning, finding the conduct did not constitute harassment under section 14(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act because it fell within the supervisors’ managerial responsibilities and was not “extraneous to the legitimate operation of the workplace.”
Regarding the yelling incident, the commission determined it was not serious enough on its own to constitute harassment, reasoning: “As a comparison, the Tribunal has held that an isolated racial slur, even one that is very harsh, will seldom by itself constitute harassment within the meaning of the CHRA. Although completely different in nature from the incident at stake, a harsh racial slur would objectively be more serious than the Respondent yelling at the Complainant that she is at fault for their communication problems.”
Court’s analysis
The Federal Court found the commission’s interpretation of harassment protection “unreasonable” and inconsistent with established law.
The court noted that neither section 14(1) of the CHRA nor guiding jurisprudence indicates managerial action is excluded from the definition of harassment. The commission had relied on a tribunal decision for the proposition that harassment jurisprudence “is premised on the idea that the conduct in issue is, by its nature, extraneous or irrelevant to the legitimate operations and business goals of the employer.”
However, the court pointed to other tribunal decisions that found discriminatory exercises of managerial authority could constitute harassment, including cases involving supervisors using authority to control employees and restrict their activities.
Commission’s own policy contradicts decision
The court highlighted that the commission’s own website acknowledges misuse of authority can constitute harassment, providing examples including “blocking applications for leave, training or promoting in an arbitrary manner” and “microaggressions, or subtle acts of exclusion.”
The website states: “Workplace harassment does not include appropriate management action (such as performance evaluations, directives and job assignments) if these are carried out in a fair manner and for legitimate reasons. However, management action that results in a negative impact and which is made based on a prohibited ground, can constitute harassment and/or discrimination.”
The court found the commission’s decisions “adopt an interpretation of harassment that is directly at odds with these sources” and narrow protection “in a manner that is neither justified by the language of the CHRA itself, nor by the policies and past practices of the Commission.”
Flawed analysis of yelling incident
The court also criticized the commission’s treatment of the yelling incident, finding it “inexplicable” that the commission failed to assess it as part of a pattern of conduct after properly determining the incidents were “related and part of a continuous pattern.”
The court noted that harassment analysis requires determining whether conduct forms “a pattern of persistent or repetitive conduct or comprises a single serious incident that is enough to create a poisoned work environment,” and decision makers must consider the cumulative effect of incidents.
Regarding the commission’s comparison to racial slur cases, the court stated: “I am frankly not sure where to even start. The first and most obvious observation to make is that, thankfully, human rights jurisprudence has evolved and what might have been deemed acceptable workplace conduct in decades past would hopefully not be viewed that way today in this country.”
The cases have been sent back to the commission for reconsideration, with costs of $2,500 awarded for each application.
For more information, see Dhaliwal v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 1033 (CanLII).
