Mohammed v. Canada Border Services Agency

Mohammed v. Canada Border Services Agency

On the balance of probabilities the Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the complainant's race, colour or ethnic and/or national origin was a factor in the adverse treatment; the problematic conduct was attributed to the BSO's inexperience and mandatory referral from an intelligence lookout rather than discriminatory motivation, so the complaint was dismissed.

Citation
2024 CHRT 101
Parties
Complainant: Tayeil Mohammed; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canada Border Services Agency
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act (section 5) / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Complaint dismissed for insufficient evidence of discrimination
Legal Topics
Racial Discrimination, Provision of Services, Secondary Inspection Procedures, Search and Seizure of Electronic Devices, Credibility Assessment, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Border and Immigration Enforcement Racial Discrimination Provision of Services Secondary Inspection Procedures Search and Seizure of Electronic Devices Credibility Assessment +1 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tayeil Mohammed

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canada Border Services Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act (section 5) / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CBSA discriminated against the complainant on the basis of race, colour or ethnic and/or national origin during a mandatory secondary inspection
  2. 2 Whether the actions during the inspection (questions, cell phone seizure, passport re-examination, length of detention) amounted to adverse differentiation under s.5 CHRA

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the complainant's race, colour or ethnic and/or national origin was a factor in the adverse treatment; the problematic conduct was attributed to the BSO's inexperience and mandatory referral from an intelligence lookout rather than discriminatory motivation, so the complaint was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed for insufficient evidence of discrimination