Saldanha v. Statistics Canada

Saldanha v. Statistics Canada

On the balance of probabilities the complainant failed to prove that any adverse treatment was caused at least in part by race, colour or national or ethnic origin or that the 2017 selection non‑renewal was retaliation; divergent witness accounts, lack of corroborative evidence linking conduct to protected characteristics, and credible operational explanations by Statistics Canada supported dismissal of the complaint.

Citation
2024 CHRT 109
Parties
Complainant: Barbara Saldanha; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Statistics Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Employment Discrimination / Final Decision (tribunal Decision)
Outcome
Complaint dismissed in full
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Colour, National or Ethnic Origin, Retaliation for Filing Complaint, Staffing and Bilingual Language Requirements, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Race Discrimination Colour National or Ethnic Origin Retaliation for Filing Complaint Staffing and Bilingual Language Requirements +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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barbara Saldanha

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Statistics Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Employment Discrimination / Final Decision (tribunal Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the complainant establish a prima facie case of discrimination under s.7 of the Canadian Human Rights Act?
  2. 2 Was the CHMS switch to a bilingual team a pretext for discrimination?
  3. 3 Did the respondent retaliate under s.14.1 of the Act by not renewing the complainant's contract or through the 2017 selection process?

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the complainant failed to prove that any adverse treatment was caused at least in part by race, colour or national or ethnic origin or that the 2017 selection non‑renewal was retaliation; divergent witness accounts, lack of corroborative evidence linking conduct to protected characteristics, and credible operational explanations by Statistics Canada supported dismissal of the complaint.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed in full