Morin v. Canada (Attorney General)

Morin v. Canada (Attorney General)

On the balance of probabilities the Tribunal found the RCMP's explanation — that the complainant failed to demonstrate consistent, acceptable decision‑making and related competencies during his probationary field training — was the genuine and sole cause of his dismissal; isolated nickname usage was not sufficiently severe or persistent to constitute s.14 harassment and overall evidence did not make inference of discrimination more probable than the employer's non‑discriminatory explanation.

Citation
2005 CHRT 41
Parties
Complainant: Jean‑Luc Morin; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Attorney General of Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint / Tribunal Decision After Inquiry
Outcome
Complaint dismissed (not substantiated)
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Harassment, Termination During Probation, Bona Fide Occupational Requirement, Prima Facie Burden, Field Training Assessment
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Labour Law Race Discrimination Harassment Termination During Probation Bona Fide Occupational Requirement +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jean‑Luc Morin

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Attorney General of Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint / Tribunal Decision After Inquiry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the complainant treated adversely on the basis of his colour during RCMP field training?
  2. 2 Was the complainant dismissed because of his colour?
  3. 3 Did the conduct constitute harassment under s.14 of the Canadian Human Rights Act?

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Tribunal found the RCMP's explanation — that the complainant failed to demonstrate consistent, acceptable decision‑making and related competencies during his probationary field training — was the genuine and sole cause of his dismissal; isolated nickname usage was not sufficiently severe or persistent to constitute s.14 harassment and overall evidence did not make inference of discrimination more probable than the employer's non‑discriminatory explanation.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed (not substantiated)