Bias human rights tribunal decision makes proving race and age discrimination almost impossible for Black Canadians. PART 1

BY BRITTNEY CHANNER

Hello Everyone!

Once again, I would like to thank you all for taking the time to faithfully read my entries. My goal here at the Toronto Caribbean Newspaper is to ensure that I am providing the community with insightful information regarding your access to justice and how to implement these tools within everyday life. This week’s entry is of notable importance strictly due to the fact that many Canadians in some way, directly or indirectly have had the unfortunate pleasure of dealing with the common issue of discrimination. Specifically, discrimination commencing within the interview process and amongst an employment setting.

In 2011, Philton Moore, a well distinguished lawyer who emigrated to Canada from England after attaining his law degree in 1996, and having worked as a barrister for seven years in the UK, applied for a legal position at a well-known personal injury firm in Hamilton, Ontario, which had vacancies for eight “junior court-room lawyer” roles. Moore was swiftly invited to attend a group interview where the idea of finding a candidate who was “the right fit” and qualified continuously entered the conversation.

During the interview process, Moore noticed that he was being interviewed in a group setting with two other candidates. He was assessed on his skills and abilities by a panel of legal associates and other lawyers of the firm. He learned after the fact that those on the panel graded his skills based on a letter grade, (A, B or C) which ideally would help them determine if he was a suitable match for the position they were offering. However, within this assessment, notes regarding his age and his abilities became an area of focus within the interview process.

It is important for readers to know, Mr. Moore has quite an extensive educational background. He obtained an LLB honors degree from the U.K, a JD Law equivalent via Osgoode Law School; which allows him to practice law in Canada. He is also a qualified commercial mediator, the qualified arbitrator at the associate level both handling legal disputes and is a qualified barrister and solicitor in two jurisdictions. Additionally, Moore has a prominent background in nursing where he graduated as a registered nurse and enabled him to train for three and a half year within the best hospitals in London and worked part-time as a nurse to help pave his way while at law school in England.

It is clear through Philton Moore’s countless accreditations that he was more than qualified and capable for such a position. Moreover, Moore established himself to be the best candidate amongst the several other candidates when interviewing for the job as he had more experience and considerable qualifications compared to the other applicants. It was even determined at the Tribunal that he received the highest overall grades of all the candidates. Unfortunately, after the interview, Moore received an email advising him that an offer of employment could not be made to him at that particular time. Although he was disappointed, like many interviewees, Moore requested feedback on his performance in order to understand the basics surrounding the decision.

It was only then, through countless interactions between Mr. Moore, the main legal associate and the owner of the firm where through their vernacular, their discriminatory actions became apparent.

This experience prompted Philton Moore to file an application against the law firm on September 13^th, 2012 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code. The Human Rights Code of Ontario is a provincial law that gives everyone equal rights and opportunities without discrimination in areas such as jobs, housing, and services. Therefore, when the rights that are clearly outlined within this law are infringed upon by an employer, individuals have the right to file a legal claim against an employer, etc.

Under the law, Mr. Moore cited section 34 of the Human Rights Code as a basis for his claim. Section 34 discusses discrimination with respect to employment because of race, color, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin (Collectively “race”) and age; also the idea of retaliation. He believed that he experienced discrimination and retaliation (reprisal) in the course of applying, interviewing and being considered for the position(s) at the law firm in question. After a lengthy seven years, a decision was made on March 22^nd, 2019 in regards to Moore’s application under the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

It was determined that the owner of the law firm engaged in racial discrimination against Mr. Moore which was in violation of his rights under section 5 (1) of the code, the owner engaged in reprisal against Mr. Moore under section 8 of the code and lastly the owner was considered liable for age discrimination against Mr. Moore. Although to some this may seem like a win for Philton Moore’s fight against discrimination of all kinds in the context of employment, the ruling was given by the Vice Chair actually did more harm for black Canadians and displayed a considerable amount of biases which will have a compounding impact on racialized lawyers and minorities.

Tune in two weeks from now for Part II