Virk v. Bell Canada (Ontario)

Virk v. Bell Canada (Ontario)

The Tribunal dismissed the complaint because the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or of retaliation: the evidence showed the January 2002 manager appointment and reversion were justified by rightsizing and business needs and were not a demotion or motivated by ethnic origin, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2005 CHRT 2
Parties
Complainant: Roger Virk; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Bell Canada (Ontario)
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Employment Discrimination / Final Decision on Merits
Outcome
Complaint dismissed
Legal Topics
Discrimination on Basis of Ethnic Origin, Retaliation (reprisal) for Filing Complaint, Prima Facie Burden of Proof, Collective Agreement Displacement Rights, Rightsizing and Managerial Appointments
Source Language
english
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Discrimination on Basis of Ethnic Origin Retaliation (reprisal) for Filing Complaint Prima Facie Burden of Proof Collective Agreement Displacement Rights Rightsizing and Managerial Appointments

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Virk

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Bell Canada (Ontario)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Employment Discrimination / Final Decision on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Bell Canada discriminated against Mr. Virk on the basis of national or ethnic origin by failing to confirm him as manager of the Globe and Mail project in January 2002
  2. 2 Whether Bell Canada, through Mr. Makdessian, retaliated against Mr. Virk for filing a human rights complaint by failing to inform him of displacement options and by terminating his employment in January 2004

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal dismissed the complaint because the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or of retaliation: the evidence showed the January 2002 manager appointment and reversion were justified by rightsizing and business needs and were not a demotion or motivated by ethnic origin, and the post‑2003 conduct (failure to specifically name potential displacement targets or to inform of removal of a surplus tag) did not constitute retaliatory conduct that affected Mr. Virk's legal displacement rights.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed