Chopra v. Health Canada

Chopra v. Health Canada

Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that (1) comments by Director Lachance on February 9, 1998 were discriminatory contrary to s.7 of the CHRA, (2) the five-day suspension imposed August 11, 1999 constituted retaliation contrary to s.14.1 of the CHRA, and (3) Dr. Chopra suffered discrimination when not offered the acting Chief, Human Safety Division position in September 1999 contrary to s.7; other allegations (including systemic discrimination under s.10 and certain historic matters) were not proven.

Citation
2008 CHRT 39
Parties
Complainant: Shiv Chopra; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Health Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Employment Discrimination Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Hearing and Final Decision by Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Outcome
Tribunal declares breaches of the Canadian Human Rights Act: findings of discrimination under s.7 and a finding of retaliation under s.14.1 and orders monetary and remedial relief
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Retaliation, Harassment, Systemic Discrimination, Remedies, Res Judicata
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Employment Law Administrative Law Workplace Harassment Law Discrimination Retaliation Harassment Systemic Discrimination +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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shiv Chopra

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Health Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Employment Discrimination Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Hearing and Final Decision by Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Health Canada discriminated against Dr. Chopra contrary to section 7 (and section 10 alleged) of the Canadian Human Rights Act
  2. 2 Whether certain conduct amounted to harassment under section 14 of the Act
  3. 3 Whether actions constituted retaliation under section 14.1 of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that (1) comments by Director Lachance on February 9, 1998 were discriminatory contrary to s.7 of the CHRA, (2) the five-day suspension imposed August 11, 1999 constituted retaliation contrary to s.14.1 of the CHRA, and (3) Dr. Chopra suffered discrimination when not offered the acting Chief, Human Safety Division position in September 1999 contrary to s.7; other allegations (including systemic discrimination under s.10 and certain historic matters) were not proven.

Court Disposition

Tribunal declares breaches of the Canadian Human Rights Act: findings of discrimination under s.7 and a finding of retaliation under s.14.1 and orders monetary and remedial relief

Orders

  • Declare that Respondent contravened sections 7 and 14.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act in relation to the specified incidents
  • Pay the Complainant the sum of CAD 4,000 for hurt feelings