Docket: T-1723-13
Citation:
2015 FC 469
[UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION]
Montréal, Quebec, April 15, 2015
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Locke
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
GANZA BUNZIGIYE
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Nature of the matter
[1]
This is an application for judicial review from
a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the CHRC) dismissing the
applicant’s complaint under subparagraph 44(3)(b)(i) of the Canadian
Human Rights Act, the CHRC being satisfied that, having regard to all the
circumstances of the complaint, inquiry into the complaint was not warranted.
[2]
The applicant alleges that, because of his race
and ethnic origin (Congolese-Rwandan), Statistics Canada denied him an ES-02 position
in September 2009 and did not renew his contract, thus discriminating
against him. The applicant further alleges that he was treated differently from
other employees and that he was harassed at his workplace.
II.
Facts
[3]
In April 2008, the applicant obtained a
contract for a CR-03 position at Statistics Canada. In September 2008,
the applicant qualified for inclusion on a CR-03/CR-04 list.
[4]
In late 2009, the applicant was assigned to
Statistics Canada’s Health Statistics Division. He remained there until
April 2010, eventually returning to his home division, the Operations and
Integration Division.
[5]
The applicant submits that he was harassed and
discriminated against in his workplace. On October 21, 2011, the applicant
filed a complained before the CHRC because of the alleged discrimination he
suffered in his workplace. Among other things, he made the following
allegations:
- He was adversely
differentiated against because of his education. The applicant was taking
a university master’s program and submits that his colleagues and
superiors felt the need to show that they were more intelligent than him.
- People in the
workplace made negative comments about him because of his smell, his
clothing and his food.
- His colleagues
insinuated that he was responsible for the disappearance of office
supplies. The applicant submits, for example, that one of his colleagues
dressed up as a criminal for Halloween and had explained to the applicant
that he was dressed up as a “smooth criminal”.
The applicant also alleges that his colleagues would drop money when the
applicant came up to them.
- His supervisor
treated him like a slave, telling him, for example, to [translation] “do this for me” or to [translation] “sit down”.
- Statistics
Canada discriminated against him by performing a biased assessment of his
work.
- Statistics
Canada did not renew his contract after October 27, 2010, because of
the discrimination complaint he had filed and his refusal to sign his assessment.
- His supervisors
ignored his questions and ideas.
- His privacy was violated
because he had to have his fingerprints taken before starting his job with
Statistics Canada.
III.
Issue
[6]
There is one issue:
1.
Is the CHRC’s decision reasonable?
IV.
Decision
[7]
The CHRC’s decision dated September 23,
2013, is supported by the investigation report according to which the applicant’s
complaint is unwarranted having regard to all the circumstances. In addition to
relying on the investigation report, the CHRC based its decision on all the
representations of the parties.
[8]
In his report, the investigator considered the
applicant’ allegations regarding the adverse differentiation to which he had
been subjected in his employment, but concluded that the applicant did not
submit any evidence in support of these allegations. The report indicates that
four of the applicant’s colleagues maintain that the applicant was not adversely
differentiated against, but some of these colleagues also claim that the
applicant was less productive than his colleagues and that he was sometimes
hard to understand whether he was speaking in French or in English.
[9]
In his report, the investigator also reviewed
the allegations that the applicant was denied an ES-02-level position. The
investigator found that the applicant had simply not obtained the passing grade
to qualify for the competition for the position he wished to apply for (the
passing grade was 98 out of 140, and the applicant obtained 83.5 out
of 140).
[10]
Moreover, the investigator analyzed the
allegations that the applicant’s contract was not renewed on discriminatory grounds.
The investigator found that Statistics Canada stated before her that the
quality of the applicant’s work was poor, that his output was below average and
that out of the 89 term employees at Statistics Canada, 17 did not
have their contracts renewed during the cuts, which also affected the
applicants. After analyzing the process used to assess the applicant, the
investigator concluded that the decision not to renew his contract was not
based on discriminatory grounds or on the fact that the applicant refused to
sign the assessment preceding his dismissal.
[11]
Lastly, the investigator found that the
applicant had not submitted any evidence in support of his allegations of
discrimination and that the investigation did not suggest that the applicant
had been discriminated against in a competition for a position or that he was
not offered a new contract on discriminatory grounds.
V.
Analysis
A.
Standard of review
[12]
The issue in this case is reviewable against a
standard of reasonableness: Lamolinaire v Bell Canada, 2012 FC
789 at para 22.
B.
Reasonableness of the decision
[13]
As noted by Justice Zinn in Herbert v Canada
(Attorney General), 2008 FC 969 at paragraph 18, “[i]n performing its screening function, the Commission is
given a very broad discretion to determine “having regard to all of the
circumstances” whether an inquiry is warranted”.
[14]
The CHRC exercised its discretion in a
reasonable manner. The applicant’s allegations are not supported by any
persuasive evidence. Moreover, the investigation report reveals that each of
the applicant’s claims was contradicted by his colleagues. The applicant was
simply unable to demonstrate that his employer violated his rights. Upon
considering all of the evidence on file, I believe that the CHRC’s decision is
reasonable in fact and in law.
[15]
I also believe that there is nothing to suggest
in this case that the CHRC did not comply with the principles of procedural
fairness.
VI.
Conclusion
[16]
In my view, this application for judicial review
should be dismissed.
[17]
I agree with the request of counsel for the
respondent that the respondent should be identified as “Attorney
General of Canada”.
Email this Content