Wilson v. Canada Border Services Agency

Wilson v. Canada Border Services Agency

The complainant failed to establish a prima facie link between the transfer and prohibited grounds (race or sex); the respondent provided a credible non‑discriminatory explanation (a July 2010 workplace incident) and the complainant did not rebut that explanation on the balance of probabilities; therefore the complaint is not substantiated and is dismissed.

Citation
2015 CHRT 11
Parties
Complainant: Claudette Wilson; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canada Border Services Agency
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (employment Discrimination) / Decision (final)
Outcome
Complaint dismissed
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Sex Discrimination, Adverse Differentiation, Prima Facie Burden, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Discrimination Law Race Discrimination Sex Discrimination Adverse Differentiation Prima Facie Burden Burden of Proof

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claudette Wilson

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canada Border Services Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (employment Discrimination) / Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CBSA was the complainant's employer for the purposes of section 7(b) of the CHRA
  2. 2 Whether the complainant established adverse differentiation on the prohibited grounds of race and sex under section 7(b) of the CHRA

Ratio Decidendi

The complainant failed to establish a prima facie link between the transfer and prohibited grounds (race or sex); the respondent provided a credible non‑discriminatory explanation (a July 2010 workplace incident) and the complainant did not rebut that explanation on the balance of probabilities; therefore the complaint is not substantiated and is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed

Orders

  • Complaint dismissed pursuant to section 53(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act