Intervener South-Asian-Legal-Clinic-of-Ontario

File Number: 35625
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
(ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR QUEBEC)
BETWEEN:
COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE
ET DES DROITS DE LAJEUNESSE
-and-
Appellant
(Respondent)
BOMBARDIER INC.
(Bombardier Aerospace Training Center)
-
and
Respondent
(Appellant)
-
JAVED LATIF
-and-
Respondent
(Respondent)
CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION, CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION, CENTER FOR RESEARCH-ACTION ON RACE RELATIONS,
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CANADIAN MUSLIMS, CANADIAN MUSLIM LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION and SOUTH ASIAN LEGAL CLINIC OF ONTARIO
Interveners
FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER
SOUTH ASIAN LEGAL CLINIC OF ONTARIO
Rule 42 of the Rules
of the Supreme Court of Canada
BENNETT JONES LLP
BENNETT JONES LLP
3400 One First Canadian Place
World Exchange Plaza
P.O. Box 130
1900-45 O'Connor Street
Toronto, Ontario
Ottawa, Ontario
M5X 1A4
KIP 1A4
Ranjan K. Agarwal
Preet K. Bell
Sheridan Scott
Telephone:
(613) 683-2300
Telephone:
(416) 863-1200
Facsimile:
(613) 683-2323
Facsimile:
(416) 863-1716
Email:
[email protected]
Email:
agarwalr@bennettj ones.com
Counsel for the Intervener,
Agent for the Intervener,
South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario
South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario
ORIGINAL TO:
THE REGISTRAR
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
COPIES TO:
BOIES DRAPEAU BOURDEAU
BERGERON, GAUDREAU
Athanassia Bitzakidis
Richard Gaudreau
360, rue St. Jaques Ouest, 2e etage
Montreal, Quebec
H2Y 1P5
Christian Baillargeon
Telephone:
(514) 770-7928
Facsimile:
(514) 864-7982
Email: athanassia. bitzakidis@cdpdj .qc.ca
Counsel for the Appellant,
Commission des droits de la personne et des
droits de la jeunesse
167, rue Notre Dame de l'Ile
Gatineau, Quebec
J8X 3T3
Telephone: (819) 770-7928
Facsimile: (819) 770-1424
[email protected]
Email:
Agent for the Appellant,
Commission des droits de la personne et des
droits de Ia jeunesse
IRVING MITCHELL KALICHMAN LLP
GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP
Catherine Elizabeth McKenzie
Guy Regimbald
2, Place-Alexis Nihon
3500 boulevard Maisonneuve, Bureau 1400
Westmount, Quebec
H3Z 3Cl
Mathieu Bouchard
Telephone:
Facsimile:
Email:
(514) 934-7727
(514) 935-2999
[email protected]
160 Elgin Street
26th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
KIP 1C3
Telephone: (613) 786-0197
Facsimile: (613) 563-9869
[email protected]
Email:
Counsel for the Appellant,
Javed Latif
Agent for the Appellant,
Javed Latif
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT CANADA
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT CANADA
LLP
LLP
Bureau 2500
1, Place Ville-Marie
Montreal, Quebec
H3B lRl
1500-45 O' Connor Street
Ottawa, Ontario
KIP 1A4
Sally Gomery
Likasz Granosik
Michel Sylvestre
Telephone:
(514) 847-4996
Facsimile:
(514) 286-5474
Email:
[email protected]
Counsel for the Respondent,
Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace
Training Center)
Telephone: (613) 780-8604
Facsimile: (613) 230-5459
[email protected]
Email:
Agent for the Respondent,
Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace
Training Center)
PALIARE, ROLAND, ROSENBERG,
ROTHSTEIN, LLP
155 Wellington Street West
351h Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5V 3Hl
GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP
160 Elgin Street
Suite 2600
Ottawa, Ontario
KIP 1C3
D. Lynne Watt
Andrew K. Lokan
Telephone:
(416) 646-4300
(416) 646-4301
Facsimile:
Email: [email protected]
Counsel for the Intervener,
Canadian Civil Liberties Association
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION
Commission canadienne des droits de la
personne
344, rue Slater
Ottawa, Ontario
KIA lEI
Philippe Dufresne
Sheila Osborne-Brown
Telephone:
Facsimile:
Email:
(613) 943-9162
(613) 993-3089
[email protected]
Counsel for the Intervener,
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Telephone: (613) 786-8695
Facsimile: (613) 788-3509
Email:
[email protected]
Agent for the Intervener,
Canadian Civil Liberties Association
CENTER FOR RESEARCH-ACTION ON
RACE RELATIONS
460, rue Sainte-Catherine Ouest
Bureau 610
Montreal, Quebec
H3B 1A7
Aymar Missakila
Selwyn Pieters
Telephone:
Facsimile:
Email:
(514) 939-3342
(514) 939-9763
[email protected]
Counsel for the Intervener,
Center for Research-Action on Race Relations
OFFICE KHALID ELGAZZAR,
BARRISTER
440 Laurier Avenue West
Suite 200
Ottawa, Ontario
K1R 7X6
Faisal Bhabha
Khalid M. Elgazzar
Faisal Mirza
Telephone:
Facsimile:
Email:
(613) 663-9991
(613) 663-5552
[email protected]
Counsel for the Interveners,
National Council of Canadian Muslims and
Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association
-i-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I
OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
PART II
STATEMENT OF POSITION
PART III
STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT
B.
.................................................
............................................................................
........................................................................
!
2
2
The Purpose of Social Context Evidence................................................................ 2
1.
The Contextual Purpose of Social Context Evidence ..................................... 2
2.
Social Context Evidence Allows Inferences of Discrimination and Profiling 4
c.
The Intersectional Aspects of Discrimination......................................................... 5
D.
Access to Justice: The Structural Barriers Facing Victims of Discrimination ....... 7
E.
Application of the Contextual Approach in this Case ... ..... .............. .... .... .... ...... . 9
.
PART IV
SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING COSTS
PART V
ORDER REQUESTED
.
.
............ ............................................
......................................................................................
10
10
1
PART I
1.
OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
A central issue in this appeal is how expert evidence of social context can prove prima
facie discrimination. But at the heart of this appeal lies a more practical concern: how can
victims of discrimination prove their claims where there is no direct evidence available to them?
2.
The Intervener South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario (SALCO) submits that, when
considering the admissibility and weight to be given to expert evidence in human rights claims,
courts and tribunals must take a contextual approach. This contextual approach allows triers of
fact to draw inferences of prima facie discrimination from social context evidence, so long as
this evidence is approximate to the circumstances of the case.
3.
In support of its position, SALCO makes the following submissions:
(a)
First, the purpose of social context evidence is to furnish general, contextual facts
that relate approximately to the facts of the case. Requiring social context expert
evidence on the exact facts to be determined ignores the role of social context
evidence. As this Court has affirmed, expert evidence of social context allows
triers of fact to draw inferences of discrimination or profiling and need not
directly relate to the facts at issue.
(b)
Second, the intersectional aspects of discrimination should inform human rights
adjudication. This means allowing expert evidence on one protected ground to
support a finding of discrimination on a related but distinct protected ground.
(c)
Third, courts and tribunals should not impose an impossible evidentiary burden on
claimants. Structural barriers beyond the control of claimants can restrict their
ability to introduce direct expert evidence before courts and human rights
tribunals. These structural challenges include, but are not limited to, the
prohibitive expense of retaining experts, national security concerns and a lack of
direct academic study of the issue.
4.
In the present case, this Court should affirm a contextual approach to admitting and
weighing social context evidence, which takes into account the purpose, nature and practical
...
....
...
-
-··
..
·-·
-�·2··;;·-
....
..
---
- ..
--
.. .. --·- -····
-- ..
.. ..
realities of tendering such evidence and recognizes that human rights claimants should not be
subjected to an impossible burden in proving primafacie discrimination.
5.
SALCO accepts the facts as stated in paragraphs 1 to 24 of the factum of the Commission
des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (the Commission).
PART II
6.
STATEMENT OF POSITION
SALCO supports the Commission's position on the burden of prooffor prima facie
discrimination and the importance of taking into account the context of racial profiling. SAL CO
takes no position on the other issues in this appeal.
PART III
7.
STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT
SALCO's proposed approach to admitting and weighing social context expert evidence
requires a court or tribunal to consider: (a) the purpose of social context evidence; (b) the
intersectional aspects of discrimination; and (c) access to justice. These factors ensure a truly
contextual approach to expert evidence of social context.
B.
The Purpose of Social Context Evidence
1.
8.
The Contextual Purpose of Social Context Evidence
Context is essential in claims of discrimination and profiling. In Corbiere v Canada
(Minister ofIndian and Northern Affairs), Justice L'Heureux-Dube recognized the importance of
social context when considering discrimination claims: a court considering a discrimination
claim must examine the "legislative, historical, and social context of the distinction" and the
"reality and experiences of the individuals affected by it". 1 The nature of modem discrimination
requires a contextual approach because discrimination today is more "subtle". It often involves
1 Corbiere v Canada (Minister ofIndian and Northern Affairs), [1999] 2 SCR 203 at �56, L'Heureux-Dube J,
dissenting in the analysis, Intervener's Book of Authorities (SALCO's Authorities), Tab 1. McLachlin J (as she
then was) and Bastarache J, for the majority, disagreed over whether the contextual analysis applied to determining
enumerated and analogous grounds, but nevertheless recognized the value of a contextual approach: "[a] distinction
on an enumerated or analogous ground established, the contextual and fact-specific inquiry proceeds to whether the
distinction amounts to discrimination in the context of the particular case." Ibid at �11, SALCO's Authorities, Tab 1.
2
3
"structural and organizational norms" that are less easy to identify as discriminatory, as
compared to the "explicit exclusions" that characterized early civil rights litigation?
9.
Social context or "social fact" evidence provides the "background context for deciding
issues crucial to the resolution of a particular case. "3 Social science research and other evidence
of social context can assist triers of fact by exposing stereotypes and assumptions. 4
10.
The purpose of expert evidence of social context is not to produce case-specific proof, 5
but rather to inform the trier of fact's understanding of the context of discrimination. In S(RD),
the Court held that social science expert testimony provides essential context for interpreting and
applying the law. 6 Justice Cory concurred, holding that, while it remains the responsibility of the
claimant to satisfy the burden of proof, courts may adduce relevant social conditions from expert
evidence.7 As an example, he pointed to the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Parks, in
which that court cited studies and reports regarding the social context of anti-black racism in
Toronto to develop a framework for challenging jurors. 8
11.
The exercise of judicial inquiry into context provides courts and tribunals with a "larger
picture", which in tum leads to a "more just determination of the case."9
12.
This contextual approach should equally apply to determining the admissibility of social
context expert evidence. The purpose of such evidence is to inform the trier of fact of the
relevant background context.
It
should not be subjected to a scientific standard, nor to a
2 Melissa Hart & Paul M Secunda, "A Matter of Context: Social Framework Evidence in Employment
Discrimination Class Actions" (2009) 78 Fordham L Rev 37 at 4 1, SALCO's Authorities, Tab 2.
3
R v Spence, 2005 SCC 7 1 at �57, 3 SCR 458, SALCO's Authorities, Tab 3.
4
Willick v Willick, [ 1994] 3 SCR 670 at 703, L'Heureux-Dube J, concurring, Commission's Book of Authorities
(Commission's Authorities), Vol IV, Tab 6 1, p 703.
5
Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Quebec, Bombardier inc c Commission des droits de Ia personne et des droits
de Iajeunesse et Javed Latifat �� 125-26, 134, Commission's Record, Vol I, pp 124, 126 (Appeal Decision), which
adopted a narrower approach, rejecting the expert evidence of social context tendered by the Commission because it
discussed "generalites."
6
R
7
Ibid at � 127, Cory J, concurring, SALCO's Authorities, Tab 4.
v S(RD), [ 1997] 3 SCR 484 at �43, McLachlin and L'Heureux-Dube JJ, SALCO's Authorities, Tab 4.
8 Ibid at � 125. See also R v Parks ( 1993), 15 OR (3d) 324, 1993 CarswellOnt 1 19 (WL Can) (leave to appeal to SCC
refused, [ 1993] SCCA No 48 1) at ��52-55 (CA), SALCO's Authorities, Tab 5.
9
Supra note 6, SALCO's Authorities, Tab 4.
- -- -
--
�
�
- --
- - -- -- . -- --- - --- --- -- -- ,;;-4
-;;;
---
-- · ----
requirement to relate exactly to the facts. Rather, approximate evidence satisfies the purpose of
social context evidence. For example, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Abbey applied a contextual
approach to the admissibility of social science expert evidence. On an appeal from the acquittal
of the defendant for murder, the court criticized the trial judge's requirement that the social
context evidence conform to scientific methodology.10 The Court found that the trial judge erred
in rejecting the expert's contextual evidence, which proposed to apply U.S. studies of gang
culture to the Canadian context.11 Approximate evidence was admissible, relevant and necessary
to assist the court in its determination.
2.
13.
Social Context Evidence Allows Inferences of Discrimination and Profiling
In discrimination and racial profiling cases, direct evidence is rarely available. Social
context evidency therefore fills this evidentiary gap by assisting triers of fact in making
inferences of discrimination or profiling.12 In Peart v Peel (Regional Municipality) Police
Services Board, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that expert evidence, academic writings and
studies allow courts to determine "factual indicators" that can support an inference of racially
motivated conduct. 13 More recently, in Pieters v Peel Law Association, the same court affirmed
that social science evidence assists in adjudicating the facts of a particular case by deepening our
"understanding of the interactions between individuals."14 Again, this evidence assists in the
more just determination of the case.
14.
Trial courts and human rights tribunals have also recognized the value of social context
evidence in making inferences of discrimination and profiling. The trial judge in Peart stated that
expert evidence on the indicators of racial profiling could provide "a ready-made inference" of
1
0
R v Abbey, 2009 ONCA 624 (WL Can) (leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2010] SCCA No 125) at ��3, 107-09,
SALCO's Authorities, Tab 6.
11
Ibid at �139, SALCO's Authorities, Tab 6.
12 Peart v Peel (Regional Municipality) Police Services Board (2006), 217 OAC 269, 2006 CarswellOnt 6912 (WL
Can) (leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2007] SCCA No 10) at ��95-96 (CA), SALCO's Authorities, Tab 7. See also
R v Brown, (2003-04-16) ONCA C37818 at �44, Commission's Authorities, Vol III, Tab 49, p 12 and Pierre-Louis
c Quebec (Ville de), 2014 QCCA 1554 at ��58-64, SALCO's Authorities, Tab 8.
13
Peart, ibid, SALCO's Authorities, Tab 7.
14
Pieters v Peel Law Assn, 2013 ONCA 396 at �120, SALCO's Authorities, Tab 9.
4
----
� ----�
- --
--
-
- ----
---�
---
-
-�
--�--
-
--
---;,-s- -;;;
- --
--
- -
---
-
----
-� �
---
-----
-
-
-
-- -
-
-
.
-
- --- -
·-·
-
- -
profiling, and that the court could draw on this inference.15 In Nassiah v Peel (Regional
Municipality) Police Services Board, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario relied on expert
evidence of racial profiling in Toronto to infer that racial profiling was likely to occur in the Peel
region.16 In Pieters, the Tribunal relied on the expert evidence tendered in Nassiah (regarding
racial profiling by police officers) to infer that aggressive questioning by a librarian amounted to
racial profiling. 17
15.
A contextual approach informs the trier of fact of the reality and experiences facing
victims of discrimination. Expert evidence of social context explains these realities and
experiences to the trier of fact by highlighting the prejudices and stereotypes prevailing in
society.
It
also informs the trier of fact of circumstances that may be approximate, and therefore
relevant, to the case before it. Courts and tribunals can draw assistance from these general,
contextual facts to arrive at conclusions ofprimafacie proof about discrimination.
C.
The Intersectional Aspects of Discrimination
16.
The contextual approach to social context expert evidence also requires a consideration of
the intersectional aspects of discrimination. The issue of intersectionality is apparent in this case,
as the claimant asserts he was discriminated against because he is Pakistani18-a national
identity tied to the Islamic faith.
17.
A court must consider the implications of intersectionality. It cannot, for instance, decide
discrimination on the grounds of national origin and religion, but fail to consider how the two
might interrelate. In this case, the Quebec Court of Appeal rejected the probative value of the
1 5 Peart v Peel (Regional Municipality) Police Services Board, 2003 CarswellOnt 2447 (WL Can) at �23 ( Sup Ct),
aff'd, (2006) 217 OAC 269 (CA), SALCO's Authorities, Tab 10. However, the Court ultimately concluded that the
evidence, on the whole, did not support a fmding of racial profiling.
1 6 Nassiah v Peel (Regional Municipality) Police Services Board, 2007 HRTO 14 (CanLII) at ��130-31, SALCO's
Authorities, Tab 11.
17 Pieters v Peel Law Assn, 2010 HRTO 2411 at �92, rev'd 2012 ONSC 1048, aff'd 2013 ONCA 396, SALCO's
Authorities, Tab 12.
18
Judgment of the Quebec Human lughts Tribunal, Commission des droits de !a personne et de droits de Iajeunesse
c Bombardier inc (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center) (Tribunal Decision) at ��7, 10, Commission's Record,
Vol I, pp 5-6.
5
�---
-
- - ---�
�- ·--
----�
----
--
-
()��-
-- - -;;;-·
--� --��
expert evidence before it because the expert had discussed discrimination against "Arabs and
Muslims" but not against Pakistanis directly.19
18.
In Law v Canada, this Court held that intersecting grounds could be the basis for
discrimination claims under the Canadian Charter ofRights and Freedoms.20 Similarly, in
Withler v Canada, this Court recognized the importance of accommodating claims based on
intersecting grounds.21
19.
The Quebec and Ontario human rights tribunals have followed this jurisprudence, taking
into account the intersectional aspects of discrimination. In Commission des droits de la
personne et des droits de Iajeunesse c Syndical des constables speciaux, the claimants asserted
age discrimination in a collective agreement. The Quebec Human Rights Tribunal also
considered the possibility that the alleged discrimination intersected with social condition,
another protected ground.22 In Baylis-Flannery v De Wilde, the applicant asserted discrimination
on the grounds of sex and race. The Ontario tribunal agreed, finding discrimination on both
grounds. Further, it found that the intersectional dimension of the discrimination exacerbated the
applicant's mental anguish.Z3
20.
Thus, courts and tribunals should approach social context evidence in light of the
intersectional nature-where it may exist--of discrimination claims. Disregarding evidence of
the intersectional aspects of discrimination deprives claimants of their ability to prove
discrimination, as it deprives them of the ability to rely on proof in the totality of the
19 Appeal Decision at ��136, 140, Commission's Record, Vol I, pp 149-150: The court noted that "[l]a religion n'est
pas ici en cause."
2°
Canadian Charter ofRights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. Law v Canada
(Minister ofEmployment and Immigration), [1999] 1 SCR 497 (CanLII) at �94, SALCO's Authorities, Tab 13. See
also Corbiere, supra note 1 at �61, L'Heureux-Dube J, dissenting in the analysis, SALCO's Authorities, Tab I.
21 Withler v Canada (AG), 20II SCC 12 at �63, [2011] I SCR 396, SALCO's Authorities, Tab I4. McLachlin CJ
and Abella J (for the Court) held that, under the first step of the substantive equality analysis under s I5(1) of the
Canadian Charter, " [i]t is unnecessary to pinpoint a particular group that precisely corresponds to the claimant
group except for the personal characteristic or characteristics alleged to ground the discrimination ... This provides
the flexibility required to accommodate claims based on intersecting grounds of discrimination."
22 Commission des droits de !a personne et des droits de Ia jeunesse c Syndicat des constables speciaux, 20I0
QCTDP 3 at ��2I6-I7, SALCO's Authorities, Tab 15.
23 Baylis-Flannery v DeWilde (Tri Community Physiotherapy), 2003 HRTO 28 at ��I46, 149, SALCO's Authorities,
Tab I6.
6
--
--
-·
--
··
-----· - ·· - -·-- ·--
-- -
----
--
-
7 �-
--- - -- ------- ------ --- - -;:;-
circumstances. Put simply, courts and tribunals should not treat protected grounds as silos, but
rather as part of the complex fabric of social reality.
D.
Access to Justice: The Structural Barriers Facing Victims of Discrimination
21.
In considering social context expert evidence, courts cannot impose an impossible burden
on claimants to produce exact or case-specific evidence24- evidence which may be beyond the
reach of claimants for any number of reasons. While this Court has expressed a preference for
social science evidence to be introduced through expert testimony, 2 5 this cannot mean that
claimants are held to an impossible burden of proof. Courts and tribunals must take judicial
notice of the difficulties that human rights claimants face in commissioning expert evidence.
Such difficulties may arise because of prohibitive expense, national security concerns or simply
because of a lack of academic study on a particular issue. In these circumstances, claimants must
be able to rely on approximate social context evidence.
22.
Recently, in Trial Lawyers Association ofBritish Columbia, this Court affirmed that
hearing fees that are too high may be unconstitutional because they deny litigants access to the
courts?6 It follows that imposing a requirement on claimants to prove a claim by obtaining
prohibitively expensive exact evidence-which can otherwise be proven with approximate
expert evidence-amounts to a denial of access to justice. This would place an "insuperable
barrier in the way of a complainant seeking a remedy", contrary to the purposes of human rights
legislation. 2 7
24 In this case, the Quebec Court of Appeal criticized the social context expert for failing to provide evidence on the
specific facts relating to the security clearance process of the U.S. Alien Students Flight Program: Appeal Decision
at � 134, Commission's Record, Vol I, p 149.
25
Bedfordv Canada (AG), 20 13 SCC 72 at �53, [20 13] 3 SCR 1 101, SALCO's Authorities, Tab 17.
26
Vi/ardell v Dunham, 20 14 SCC 59 at �46, SALCO's Authorities, Tab 18.
27
Ontario Human Rights Commission v Simpsons-Sears, [ 1985] 2 SCR 536 at 549, SALCO's Authorities, Tab 19.
7
8
23.
Exact or case-specific expert evidence may also be beyond the reach of claimants for
other reasons:
•
First, "there [may be] a paucity of such evidence available" because a particular
type of discrimination has not yet been studied?8 For example, a claimant
intending to prove racial profiling by airlines cannot obtain the statistics to do so
and, even if the claimant could obtain such statistics, there may be extensive (and
expensive) discovery_29
•
Second, national security concerns may prevent a claimant from obtaining direct
expert evidence of discriminatory conduct. As this Court noted in the context of
security certificates, an individual "may be deprived of access to some or all of
the information put against him or her, which would deny the person the ability to
know the case to meet."3 0
24.
The challenges to obtaining expert evidence affect all human rights claimants in Canada.
The prohibitive expense of obtaining such evidence imposes burdens on claimants in direct
access jurisdictions, including Quebec3 \ British Columbia, Nunavut, and Ontario. 32 These
claimants must pay to retain experts, in addition to paying for other related expenses. Even
where a human rights commission may be representing a claimant, the expense may be beyond
the commission's limited resources. Finally, the paucity of direct expert evidence impacts the
ability of all claimants to prove discrimination, regardless of whether the claimant is represented
by a human rights commission, a lawyer or paralegal or self-represented.
28
R v Koh ( 1998), 1 16 OAC 244, 1998 CarswellOnt 50 16 (WL Can) at �24 (CA), SALCO's Authorities, Tab 20.
See also Spence, supra note 3 at �69, SALCO's Authorities, Tab 3.
29
Ellen Baker, "Flying While Arab-Racial Profiling and Air Travel Security" (2002) 67 J Air L Com 1375 at
1388, SALCO's Authorities, Tab 2 1. This article examines the issue of racial and ethnic profiling of Arabs and
Muslims in the context of air travel security and the difficulty of proving such profiling.
3° Charkaoui v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9 at �55, [2007] 1 SCR 350, SALCO's
Authorities, Tab 22.
31
Charter ofHuman Rights and Freedoms, CQLR c C- 12, arts 49, 84, 85.
32 In British Columbia, Nunavut and Ontario, except in exceptional circumstances, claimants must bring their claims
directly before the respective human rights tribunal: Human Rights Code, RSBC 1996, c 2 10, s 2 1; Human Rights
Act, SNu 2003, c 12, s 21; Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c H. 19, s 34.
-.: 9-;:; -
--
-
--
--
-
E.
Application of the Contextual Approach in this Case
25.
The divergence on the issue of social context expert evidence between the Quebec Court
of Appeal in this case and the Ontario Court of Appeal in Pieters illustrates the uncertainty in
this area of law in Canada.33 This appeal presents this Court with an opportunity to clarify its
scope.
26.
SALCO proposes a contextual approach to determining the admissibility and weight
accorded to expert evidence of social context. Courts and tribunals should take into account the
purpose, nature and practical realities of tendering social context evidence:
(a)
First, courts and tribunals should consider the purpose of such evidence, which is
to provide necessary context for the trier of fact. This means allowing social
context evidence that relates approximately to the facts at issue.
(b)
Second, they should consider the nature of such evidence, which is to provide
context into the lives of victims of discrimination. This requires considering the
intersectional aspects of discrimination.
(c)
Finally, the practical barriers to obtaining direct evidence must be considered, so
as not to impede access to justice.
27.
SALCO does not submit that a new and less onerous burden of proof applies to claims of
discrimination and profiling. Rather, the subtle nature-yet pernicious effects--of discrimination
and profiling demand a contextual approach to the evidence tendered.
28.
"This inquiry provide[s] the Court with a larger picture, which was in turn conducive to a
more just determination of the case."34
33
Appeal Decision at ��75- 146, Commission's Record, Vol I, pp 138-51; Pieters, supra note 14 at �� 109-25,
SALCO's Authorities, Tab 9. See also a discussion of these divergent approaches in Beatrice Vizkelety, "Revising
the Prima Facie Case and Recognizing Stereotypes Based on Unconscious Bias in Racial and Ethnic
Discrimination" (20 13) 20 Charter and Human Rights Litigation 1755, Commission's Authorities, Tab 83.
34
Supra note 6, SALCO's Authorities, Tab 4.
9
-----
-----
---
--
---·-
- - - - - - --- - - --
---
----
-------
---
--
PART IV
29.
---- --------
-
-
-;;;-to----------
10
----
SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING COSTS
SALCO does not seek its costs of this appeal. SALCO should not be ordered to pay the
whole or any part of the costs of this appeal.
PARTY
30.
ORDER REQUESTED
SALCO respectfully requests permission to present oral argument at the hearing of this
appeal.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
THIS lOTH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014.
BENNETT JONES LLP
3400 One First Canadian Place
P.O. Box 130
Toronto, ON M5X lAS
Telephone:
Facsimile:
Email:
(416) 863.1200
(416) 863.1716
[email protected]
Counsel for the Intervener,
South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario
11
PART VI:
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Jurisprudence
Cited At
Baylis-Flannery v DeWilde (Tri Community Physiotherapy) , 2003 HR TO 28.
�19
Bedford v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 SCC 72, [2013] 3 SCR 1101.
�21
Charkaoui v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2007 SCC 9, [2007] 1 SCR
350.
�23
Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de Iajeunesse c Syndicat des
constables speciaux, 2010 QCTDP 3.
�19
Corbiere v Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), [1999] 2 SCR 203.
��8, 17
Law v Canada (Minister ofEmployment and Immigration) , [ 1999] 1 SCR 497.
�18
Nassiah v Peel (Regional Municipality) Police Services Board, 2007 HRTO 14.
�14
Ontario Human Rights Commission v Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 SCR 536.
�22
Peart v Peel (Regional Municipality) Police Services Board, 2003 CarswellOnt 2447
(WL Can) (Sup Ct).
�14
Peart v Peel (Regional Municipality) Police Services Board (2006), 217 OAC 269,
2006 CarswellOnt 6912 (WL Can) (CA).
�13
Pierre-Louis c Quebec (Ville de), 2014 QCCA 1554.
�13
Pieters v Peel Law Assn, 2010 HRTO 2411.
�14
Pieters v Peel Law Assn, 2013 ONCA 396.
��13, 25
R v Abbey, 2009 ONCA 624.
�12
R v Brown, (2003-04-16) ONCA C37818.
�13
R v Koh (1998), 116 OAC 244, 1998 CarswellOnt 5016 (WL Can) (CA).
�23
R v Parks (1993), 15 OR (3d) 324, 1993 CarswellOnt 119 (WL Can).
�10
R v S(RD), [1997] 3 SCR 484.
��10, 11,
27
R v Spence, 2005 SCC 71, 3 SCR 458.
��9, 23
12
Vilardell v Dunham, 2014 SCC 59.
�22
Willick v Willick, [1994] 3 SCR 670.
il9
Withler v Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 12, [2011] 1 SCR 396.
�18
Scholarship
Beatrice Vizkelety, "Revising the Prima Facie Case and Recognizing Stereotypes
Based on Unconscious Bias in Racial and Ethnic Discrimination" (2013) 20 Charter
and Human Rights Litigation 1755.
�25
Ellen Baker, "Flying While Arab-Racial Profiling and Air Travel Security" (2002)
67 J Air L Com 1375.
�23
Melissa Hart & Paul M Secunda, "A Matter of Context: Social Framework Evidence
in Employment Discrimination Class Actions" (2009) 78 Fordham L Rev 37.
�8
13
PART VII:
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, Regles de !a Cour supreme du Canada,
SOR/2002-156
DORS/2002-156
42. (1) [Repealed, SOR/2011-74, s. 21]
(2) The factum shall be bound and consist of 42. (1) [Abroge, DORS/2011-74, art. 21]
the following parts:
(2) Le memoire est relie et comporte les parties
suivantes:
(a) Part I consisting of
(i) in the appellant's factum, a concise a) partie I:
overview of their position and a concise
(i) dans le cas de l'appelant : expose concis de
statement of the facts,
sa position et des faits,
(ii) in the respondent's factum, a concise
overview of their position and a concise (ii) dans le cas de l'intime:expose concis de sa
statement of their position with respect to the position, notamment sur les faits exposes par
appellant's statement of facts, including a l'appelant, et des autres faits qu'il estime
concise statement of any other facts that the pertinents,
respondent considers relevant, and
(iii) dans le cas de l'intervenant: expose concis
(iii) in the intervener's factum, a concise de sa position relativement aux questions
overview of their position with respect to the visees par son intervention, y compris un
questions on which they have intervened, expose concis des faits pertinents quant a ces
including a concise statement of the facts questions;
relevant to the questions on which they have
b) partie II :
intervened;
(b) Part II consisting of
(i) dans le cas de l'appelant: expose concis des
questions en litige,
(i) in the appellant's factum, a concise
statement of the questions in issue in the (ii) dans le cas de l'intime:expose concis de sa
position relativement aux questions soulevees
appeal,
par 1' appelant;
(ii) in the respondent's factum, a concise
overview of their position with respect to the (iii) dans le cas de l'intervenant :expose concis
de sa position relativement aux questions
appellant's questions, and
soulevees par 1' appelant et visees par son
(iii) in the intervener's factum, a concise intervention.
overview of their position with respect to the
appellant's questions on which they have c) partie III : expose des arguments enonyant
succinctement les questions de droit ou de fait
intervened;
a debattre, avec renvoi a la page du dossier
ainsi
qu'a l'onglet, a la page et au paragraphe
(c) Part III consisting of a statement of
argument setting out concisely the questions of des sources invoquees;
-- - --·
-
-- ----
-- - -
- ��
---- --� -·--
-
�4
-- ---;; - -
--.:-
- ---
-- -
- -- . ---- --
---- -
14
--
---
--------
------
-----
-
-
law or fact to be discussed, with reference to d) partie IV : arguments, le cas echeant, d'au
the page of the record and to the tab, page and plus une page a l'appui de !'ordonnance
paragraph number of the authorities being demandee au sujet des depens;
relied on;
e) partie V:
(d) Part IV consisting of submissions, if any,
not exceeding one page in support of the order (i) dans le cas de l'appelant et de l'intime
expose concis des ordonnances demandees,
sought concerning costs;
(ii) dans le cas de l'intervenant : toute demande
en vue de presenter une plaidoirie orale lors de
(i) in the appellant's factum and the !'audition de l'appel, si cette question n'est pas
respondent's factum, a concise statement of the deja tranchee dans !'ordonnance autorisant
1' intervention;
order or orders sought, and
(e) Part V consisting of
(ii) in the
determined
intervention,
present oral
appeal;
intervener's factum, if not yet f) partie VI : table alphabetique des sources,
in the order granting the avec renvoi aux paragraphes de la partie III ou
any request for permission to elles sont citees;
argument at the hearing of the
g) partie VII : extraits des lois, reglements,
ou
ordonnances
regles,
reglements
(f) Part VI consisting of a table of authorities, administratifs directement en cause, presentes
arranged alphabetically and setting out the sous forme de photocopies ou d'imprimes tires
paragraph numbers in Part III where the d'une base de donnees electronique et
authorities are cited; and
reproduits dans les deux langues officielles si
la loi exige la publication de ces textes dans les
(g) Part VII consisting of a photocopy, or a deux langues officielles, les textes volumineux
printout from an electronic database, of those etant relies dans un volume distinct et ceux qui
provisions of any statute, regulation, rule, ne sont pas directement en cause etant inclus
ordinance or by-law directly at issue, in both dans le recueil de sources.
official languages if they are required by law to
be published in both official languages, but (3) La partie V du memoire de 1' intervenant ne
lengthy statutes shall be bound in a separate comporte aucun enonce quant a l'issue de
volume, and statutes not directly at issue shall l'appel, sauf ordonnance contraire d'un juge.
be included in the book of authorities.
(4) Les parties I a V des memoires d'un
(3) Part V of the intervener's factum shall not appelant et d'un intime comptent au plus
consist of any statement with respect to the quarante pages, sauf ordonnance contraire d'un
outcome of the appeal unless otherwise ordered juge ou du registraire, sur requete.
by a judge.
(5) Les parties I a V du memoire du procureur
(4) Parts I to V of the factum of any appellant general vise au paragraphe 61(4), comptent au
or respondent shall not exceed 40 pages, unless plus vingt pages, sauf ordonnance contraire
a judge or the Registrar, on motion, otherwise d'un juge ou du registraire, sur requete.
orders.
(6) Les parties I a V du memoire de
(5) Parts I to V of the factum of an attorney l'intervenant autre que le procureur general
general referred to in subrule 61(4) shall not vise au paragraphe 61(4) comptent au plus dix
--- - ---- ------ ----;;;--15 --:;;---- -- -------
--
--- --
-
----- ---
-
--------
--
--
--
-
---- - -
exceed 20 pages, unless a judge or the pages, sauf ordonnance contraire d'un juge ou
Registrar, on motion, otherwise orders.
du registraire, sur reqw3te.
(6) Parts I to V of the factum of an intervener,
other than an attorney general referred to in
subrule 61(4), shall not exceed 1 0 pages,
unless a judge or the Registrar, on motion,
otherwise orders.
(7) L'appelant joint en annexe a son memoire
une copie de toute ordonnance formulant une
question constitutionnelle en vertu du
paragraphe 61(1).
DORS/2006-203, art. 17; DORS/2011-74, art.
(7) The appellant shall include a copy of any 21; S/2013-175, art. 29.
order stating a constitutional question referred
to in subrule 61(1) as an appendix to their
factum.
SOR/2006-203, s. 17; SOR/2011-74, s. 21;
SOR/2013-175, s. 29.
Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms,
CQLR c C-12
Charte des droits et libertes de la personne,
CQLR c C-12
Recourse of victim for unlawful interference.
Reparation de prejudice pour atteinte illicite a
un droit.
49. Any unlawful interference with any right or
freedom recognized by this Charter entitles the
victim to obtain the cessation of such
interference and compensation for the moral or
material prejudice resulting therefrom.
Punitive damages.
49. Une atteinte illicite a un droit ou a une
liberte reconnu par la presente Charte confere a
la victime le droit d'obtenir la cessation de cette
atteinte et la reparation du prejudice moral ou
materiel qui en resulte.
Dommages-interets punitifs.
In case of unlawful and intentional
interference, the tribunal may, in addition, En cas d'atteinte illicite et intentionnelle, le
condemn the person guilty of it to punitive tribunal peut en outre condamner son auteur a
damages.
des dommages-interets punitifs.
1975, c. 6, s. 49; 1999, c. 40, s. 46.
1975, c. 6, a49; 1999, c. 40, a46.
Discretionary power.
Discretion de la Commission.
84. Where, following the filing of a complaint,
the commission exercises its discretionary
power not to submit an application to a tribunal
to pursue, for a person's benefit, a remedy
provided for in sections 80 to 82, it shall notify
the complainant of its decision, stating the
84. Lorsque, a la suite du depot d'une plainte, la
Commission exerce sa discretion de ne pas
saisir un tribunal, au benefice d'une personne,
de l'un des recours prevus aux articles 80 a 82,
elle le notifie au plaignant en lui en donnant les
15
-·········
-·-· - -
---- ---
---
--
-·
--- - -- -- -
· ---- -- -- - - - -- --
-
- ;;;··
I-6
-;;; --·
--·-
-----
-·----·-
-
---
..
- -
---
·-·--
--
-·
reasons on which it is based.
motifs.
Intervention by victim.
Recours aux frais du plaignant.
85. The victim may intervene at any stage of
proceedings to which the commission is party
pursuant to sections 80 to 82 and in which he
has an interest. If the victim does intervene, the
commission cannot bring an appeal without his
consent.
Dans un delai de 90 jours de la reception de
cette notification, le plaignant peut, a ses frais,
saisir le Tribunal des droits de la personne de
ce recours, pour l'exercice duquel il est
substitue de plein droit a la Commission avec
les memes effets que si celle-ci l'avait exerce.
Remedies pursued by victim.
1975, c. 6, a 84; 1982, c. 61, a20; 1989, c. 51,
a. 5.
Subject to the second paragraph of section 111,
the victim may personally pursue the remedies Intervention de la victime.
provided for in sections 80 to 82 or bring an
appeal, even though he was not party to the 85. La victime peut, dans la mesure de son
interet et en tout etat de cause, intervenir dans
proceedings in first instance.
!'instance a laquelle la Commission est partie
Access to record.
en application des articles 80 a 82. Dans ce cas,
la Commission ne peut se pourvoir seule en
In all such cases, the commission shall give the appel sans son consentement.
victim access to the record which concerns
Recours personnels.
him.
1975, c. 6, s. 85; 1989, c. 51, s. 5.
La victime peut, sous reserve du deuxieme
alinea de !'article 111, exercer personnellement
les recours des articles 80 a 82 ou se pourvoir
en appel, meme si elle n'etait pas partie en
premiere instance.
Acces au dossier.
Dans tous ces cas, la Commission doit lui
donner acces a son dossier.
1975, c. 6, a 85; 1989, c. 51, a5.
16
-
-
- - --
-
------
-
---
-
-----
� -
--
------
---- - ·
---- --
----------
--- --- ---
-----
··--- - ---
Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c H.19
Application by person
- ----1-'7--;;--- --------
--
- - - - ---
-
- -
--
- ---
-- -
- - --
--
-
-
-
Code des droits de fa personne, LRO 1990 c
H.19
Presentation d'une requete par une personne
34. (1) If a person believes that any of his or
her rights under Part I have been infringed, the 34. (1) La personne qui croit qu'il y a eu
person may apply to the Tribunal for an order atteinte a l'un ou l'autre de ses droits reconnus
dans la partie I peut presenter une requete au
under section 45.2,
Tribunal en vue d'obtenir une ordonnance
(a) within one year after the incident to which visee a 1' article 45.2 :
the application relates; or
a) soit dans l'annee qui suit !'incident auquel
(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one se rapporte Ia requete;
year after the last incident in the series. 2006,
c. 30, s. 5.
b) soit dans l'annee qui suit le demier incident
d'une serie d'incidents. 2006, chap. 30, art. 5.
Human Rights Code, RSBC 1996, c 210
Complaints
21 (1) Any person or group of persons that alleges that a person has contravened this Code may
file a complaint with the tribunal in a form satisfactory to the tribunal.
(2) and (3) [Repealed 2002-62-7.]
(4) Subject to subsection (5), a complaint under subsection (1) may be filed on behalf of
(a) another person, or
(b) a group or class of persons whether or not the person filing the complaint is a member
of that group or class.
(5) A member or panel may refuse to accept, for filing under subsection (1), a complaint
made on behalf of another person or a group or class of persons if that member or panel is
satisfied that
(a) the person alleged to have been discriminated against does not wish to proceed with
the complaint, or
(b) proceeding with the complaint is not in the interest of the group or class on behalf of
which the complaint is made.
(6) A member or panel may proceed with 2 or more complaints together if a member or
panel is satisfied that it is fair and reasonable in the circumstances to do so.
17
-
---
-- - - --- -
--
--- -
---
-- --- --
----
-
-
-
- ·--
--· --
-· · - -
---·· -
----- ----·--
;;;- -
·
Human Rights Act, SNu 2003, c 12
Notification
21. An individual or group of individuals
having reasonable grounds for believing that a
person has contravened this Act, and claiming
to be aggrieved because of the alleged
contravention, may file a notification with the
Tribunal orally or in any other form or manner
satisfactory to the Tribunal of the
circumstances of the alleged contravention.
11061556
I-8---;;;
·-··--
-
--
--
--- --
-· -
Loi sur les droits de la personne, LNun 2003, c
12
Notification
21. Le particulier ou le groupe de
particuliers qui a des motifs raisonnables de
croire qu'une personne a contrevenu a la
presente loi, et qui s'estime lese en raison de la
contravention reprochee, peut deposer une
notification aupres du Tribunal decrivant les
circonstances de la contravention reprochee, et
ce, verbalement ou de toute autre fa<;on que le
Tribunal estime satisfaisante.
18