Miller v. Toronto-Dominion Bank

Miller v. Toronto-Dominion Bank

Complainant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that race, colour or disability was a factor in his demotion because the IRIS program was conceived and implemented neutrally, decision‑makers relied on objective criteria (performance, then tenure, then geography), the Bank did not use protected characteristic data in mapping, and no evidence or statistics connected the adverse outcome to a protected ground; therefore the complaint is dismissed under s.7 CHRA.

Citation
2024 CHRT 94
Parties
Complainant: Christian Miller; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Toronto‑Dominion Bank
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Employment Discrimination / Decision
Outcome
Complaint dismissed
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Colour Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Adverse Effect Discrimination, Reorganization and Redundancies, Prima Facie Burden of Proof, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (edi)
Source Language
English
Canadian Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Race Discrimination Colour Discrimination Disability Discrimination Adverse Effect Discrimination Reorganization and Redundancies +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christian Miller

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Toronto‑Dominion Bank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Employment Discrimination / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant’s race, colour or disability was a factor in his demotion under the Bank’s IRIS reorganization program
  2. 2 Whether the Bank’s neutral reorganization program had an adverse/disproportionate effect on a protected group
  3. 3 Whether an employer must apply EDI considerations in neutral redundancy protocols

Ratio Decidendi

Complainant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that race, colour or disability was a factor in his demotion because the IRIS program was conceived and implemented neutrally, decision‑makers relied on objective criteria (performance, then tenure, then geography), the Bank did not use protected characteristic data in mapping, and no evidence or statistics connected the adverse outcome to a protected ground; therefore the complaint is dismissed under s.7 CHRA.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed

Orders

  • Complaint dismissed; no remedy ordered