[1] Mr. Ali Tahmourpour is a former cadet of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police ("RCMP"). He was dismissed prior to the completion of his training in October 1999. He claimed to be the victim of personal and systemic discrimination on grounds of religion, and national and ethnic origin. He lodged a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission ("Commission"). An investigator reviewed the evidence supporting Mr. Tahmourpour's claim and interviewed material witnesses. He found that Mr. Tahmourpour had been dismissed for poor job performance, not discrimination, and recommended to the Commission that Mr. Tahmourpour's complaint be dismissed. The Commission accepted that recommendation and dismissed the complaint. Mr. Tahmourpour argues that the Commission erred when it accepted the investigator's report and asks me to order the Commission to reconsider the basis of his complaint.
[2] I can find no basis on which to overturn the Commission's decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
I. Issues
[3] Mr. Tahmourpour presented two main issues:
1. Did the Commission fail to consider evidence of systemic discrimination on the part of the RCMP?
2. Did the Commission err in finding that Mr. Tahmourpour had failed to show a foundation for his claim of discrimination?
II. Analysis
[4] I can only grant the relief Mr. Tahmourpour seeks if I find that the Commission's decision to dismiss his complaint was unreasonable. In respect of the two issues raised by Mr. Tahmourpour, I find that the Commission's decision was not unreasonable.
[5] As a preliminary matter, I note that Mr. Tahmourpour improperly named the RCMP and the Department of the Solicitor General as respondents to these proceedings. The only proper respondent is the Solicitor General: Enniss v. Canada (Canadian Human rights Commission), [1995] F.C.J. No. 1593 (T.D.) (QL). The style of cause has been amended accordingly.
A. Did the Commission fail to consider evidence of systemic discrimination on the part of the RCMP?
[6] Mr. Tahmourpour made an allegation that discrimination in the RCMP was systemic. He did not specifically rely on s. 10 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, which prohibits discrimination on the part of employers by way of policies or practices. Still, he presented the investigator with statistics that he claimed proved that the rate of attrition was much higher for cadets who are visible minorities than for others. Mr. Tahmourpour argues that the investigator ignored those numbers and, accordingly, did not deal with an important aspect of his claim.
[7] In fact, the investigator did review some of the figures Mr. Tahmourpour provided. However, he did not deal specifically with the numbers of cadets who resigned or were terminated over recent years. Nor did he refer to Mr. Tahmourpour's analysis of those figures.
[8] I have reviewed the statistics submitted by Mr. Tahmourpour. They show, on the one hand, the number of cadets who left the RCMP and, on the other hand, the number of persons who were recruited and hired by the RCMP. The numbers are broken down into categories for visible minorities, aboriginal persons and women. Mr. Tahmourpour finds it significant that the RCMP claims an overall rate of attrition of 7%, while his calculation of the attrition rate for visible minorities is much higher: He says it is 23%.
[9] Looking at the numbers Mr. Tahmourpour relied on, I note that the last year for which statistics are complete is 2000. Overall, from the years 1996 to 2000, the RCMP attracted 3,121 recruits and hired 2,696 persons. The differential, 425 persons, appears to represent the number of recruits who were not hired, for one reason or another. During the same period, the RCMP recruited 377 visible minorities, and a maximum of 60 of them resigned or were dismissed. On the face of these statistics, I do not see a basis for Mr. Tahmourpour's claim of systemic discrimination. The rates of recruitment appear to be comparable for the general cadet population and for visible minorities. I hesitate to make any definitive conclusion on that issue because the data is limited. However, suffice to say that the numbers themselves do not make out a case of systemic discrimination. Nor do they provide circumstantial evidence supporting his personal complaint: Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Department of National Health and Welfare) (re Chopra), [1998] F.C.J. No. 432 (T.D.) (QL).
[10] The investigator referred to the overall statistics tendered by Mr. Tahmourpour and went on to find, independently, that there was no evidence of systemic discrimination in 1999, the year in which Mr. Tahmourpour was dismissed. I cannot see any significant omission in the investigator's report, nor any error by the Commission when it accepted the investigator's conclusion.
B. Did the Commission err in finding that Mr. Tahmourpour had failed to show a foundation for his claim of discrimination?
[11] Mr. Tahmourpour argued that the Commission was wrong to conclude that his complaint was not supported by the evidence. He cited a number of specific incidents that he characterized as discriminatory. First, his sergeant announced to the rest of his unit that Mr. Tahmourpour was permitted to wear a religious pendant. Second, a corporal asked him about the language in which he signed his name. Third, the same corporal described himself as not being "politically correct". Mr. Tahmourpour understood this to mean that the corporal was hostile to minorities. Fourth, another corporal asked him about his national origin. In addition, Mr. Tahmourpour says he was the object of abusive language, unwarranted criticism and unjustifiably poor performance appraisals.
[12] The investigator looked into all of these matters. He cited the following evidence:
· Normally, cadets are not allowed to wear jewellery during physical training. An exception is made for religious jewellery or "medic alert" bracelets. The sergeant explained that cadets are asked if they are wearing jewellery that falls within the exceptions and, for safety reasons, the rest of the unit is informed accordingly.
· Out of curiosity, a corporal asked Mr. Tahmourpour about his unique signature.
· The corporal was a firearms instructor. When he described himself as not being "politically correct", he meant that he sometimes had to speak loudly and abruptly so as to be heard and understood in a dangerous environment.
· The other corporal said that she may have asked Mr. Tahmourpour about his origins, simply because she wanted to learn more about him.
· There was no evidence that Mr. Tahmourpour's superiors subjected him to especially abusive language or singled him out because of his national origin or religion.
· Mr. Tahmourpour performed poorly in evaluations of his handling of firearms. His performance was well-documented and the evaluations were thorough. Mr. Tahmourpour was dismissed because of his poor job performance.
[13] Mr. Tahmourpour correctly asserts that the RCMP must be held to the highest standards of comportment and adhere to the fundamental principles underlying anti-discrimination laws. However, a complaint of discrimination is a serious accusation. The Commission must dismiss complaints that are unsupported by evidence in order to prevent respondents from having to answer accusations that are unfounded. If, after an investigation, the Commission determines that the complaint is unsupported, this Court will intervene only if the Commission's decision is unreasonable: Slattery v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), [1994] F.C.J. No. 181 (T.D.) (QL).
[14] Here, the investigator did not find any evidence to support Mr. Tahmourpour's various complaints of discriminatory conduct on the part of his superiors. True, some of the events he described did, in fact, take place. But the investigator found them to be innocuous and explained satisfactorily by the persons he interviewed. There was no indication of discriminatory intent or treatment. The investigator provided a thorough, written analysis of all of Mr. Tahmourpour's allegations and of the relevant evidence. I can find no error on the part of the investigator and, consequently, no basis for concluding that the Commission acted unreasonably when it relied on the investigator's report.
III. Conclusion
[15] Mr. Tahmourpour has failed to persuade me that the Commission's decision to dismiss his complaint was unreasonable. I must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review. There will be no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S ORDER IS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed;
2. No order as to costs.
J.F.C.
| Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6
Discriminatory policy or practice
10. It is a discriminatory practice for an employer, employee organization or employer organization
(a) to establish or pursue a policy or practice, or
(b) to enter into an agreement affecting recruitment, referral, hiring, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or any other matter relating to employment or prospective employment,
that deprives or tends to deprive an individual or class of individuals of any employment opportunities on a prohibited ground of discrimination.
|
|
Loi canadienne sur les droits de la personnes, L.R.C. 1985, ch. H-6
Lignes de conduite discriminatoires
10. Constitue un acte discriminatoire, s'il est fondé sur un motif de distinction illicite et s'il est susceptible d'annihiler les chances d'emploi ou d'avancement d'un individu ou d'une catégorie d'individus, le fait, pour l'employeur, l'association patronale ou l'organisation syndicale_:
a) de fixer ou d'appliquer des lignes de conduite;
b) de conclure des ententes touchant le recrutement, les mises en rapport, l'engagement, les promotions, la formation, l'apprentissage, les mutations ou tout autre aspect d'un emploi présent ou éventuel.
|
|
|
|
|
FEDERAL COURT
Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: T-1568-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: ALI TAHMOURPOUR v.THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
DATED: APRIL 21, 2004
APPEARANCES BY:
Mr. Ali Tahmourpour FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Sogie Sabeta FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MR. ALI TAHMOURPOUR
(Appearing on his own behalf) FOR THE APPLICANT
MR. MORRIS ROSENBERG
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content