Turner v. Canada Border Services Agency

Turner v. Canada Border Services Agency

The Tribunal found that even assuming a prima facie case, CBSA provided a reasonable, non‑pretextual explanation — the complainant lacked necessary enforcement experience and failed to demonstrate required competencies in competitive processes; the poorly worded eligibility restriction was applied per its intended purpose and procedural shortcomings were bureaucratic rather than discriminatory — and therefore the complaint was dismissed.

Citation
2010 CHRT 15
Parties
Complainant: Levan Turner; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canada Border Services Agency
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (employment) / Decision (hearing Concluded; Complaint Dismissed)
Outcome
Complaint dismissed
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Race, National or Ethnic Origin, Age, Recruitment and Selection, Eligibility Restrictions, Prima Facie Evidence, Pretext
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Discrimination Race National or Ethnic Origin Age Recruitment and Selection +3 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Levan Turner

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canada Border Services Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (employment) / Decision (hearing Concluded; Complaint Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent discriminated against the complainant on grounds of race or national/ethnic origin or age in staffing decisions
  2. 2 Whether the eligibility restriction was applied discriminatorily or in bad faith
  3. 3 Whether the complainant established a prima facie case from circumstantial evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that even assuming a prima facie case, CBSA provided a reasonable, non‑pretextual explanation — the complainant lacked necessary enforcement experience and failed to demonstrate required competencies in competitive processes; the poorly worded eligibility restriction was applied per its intended purpose and procedural shortcomings were bureaucratic rather than discriminatory — and therefore the complaint was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed