You People (Racist Comment)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-27
CLNP Page ID:	1997
Page Categories:	[Human Rights]
Citation:	You People (Racist Comment), CLNP 1997, <>, retrieved on 2024-11-27
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2022/09/08

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

Rowe v. 416 Community Support for Women, 2010 HRTO 2235 (CanLII)

[30] The applicant called one witness who was present for this incident. This witness states that the White staff member said that the applicant didn’t deserve pizza because it was only for workers. This witness testified that the White staff member used the term “you people” and that when the altercation between the White staff member and the applicant broke out, she heard the word “bitches” used. This witness states that she did not hear the White staff member say “Black bitches”, although she was on her way downstairs and didn’t hear the whole exchange. This witness states that she spoke to the personal respondent about the incident and asked if the personal respondent was going to speak to them about their behaviour, but she states that the White staff member did not receive any reprimand.

[31] The White staff member testified that when the pizza arrived, she went out to get the pizza, and the applicant came in and took the pizza. This witness states that she said, “I don’t think so, this is for the workers”. This witness states that she grabbed the pizza out of the applicant’s hands, and took it in to the staff who were cleaning up downstairs. This witness denies that she referred to the applicant or other staff as “Black bitches” or “bitches”. She states that she doesn’t think it is possible that she referred to the applicant and others as “you people”, although she may have said “you guys”. She also states that the applicant did not throw the pizza on the floor and that there was no physical altercation. This witness states that no-one spoke to her about the incident, although in response to my questions, she said that the personal respondent may have spoken to her that day and she just doesn’t recall it. She states that her relationship with the applicant was fine before this incident and fine afterwards.

...

[36] Third, the only witness called by the applicant in relation to this incident did not provide evidence to corroborate that the White staff member used the term “Black bitches”. Further, while this witness states that she heard the word “bitches” used, she did not attribute the use of this word specifically to the White staff member. Rather, her evidence is that the White staff member used the term “you people”.

[37] In consideration of all of the evidence before me, I find that I do not have sufficient reliable evidence to establish that the White staff member used the term “Black bitches” in reference to the applicant and other staff members. While the White staff member may have said “you people” or “you guys”, I find that she was referring to the staff members whom she did not regard as helping out with the clean-up, and not as a racial comment. As I have found that the evidence does not support that this alleged racial comment was made, I find that no allegation of a racial comment was raised by the applicant with the personal respondent and accordingly that there was no failure by the personal respondent to appropriately respond to an alleged violation of the Code.

Sourial v. Dana Hospitality GP Inc., 2019 HRTO 50 (CanLII)

[19] Context counts. Generally speaking, the words, “your people” or “you people”, may well signal a racist comment, particularly involving a stereotype, but the entire sentence and its context require examination.

...

[23] As stated in George v. 1735475 Ontario Limited, 2017 HRTO 761, (“George”) this Tribunal has found the term, “you people”, when applied to a racialized group, to be racially discriminatory language, particularly when combined with derogatory references to racialized persons as being “stupid” or not being able to do anything right, as was the context in George. (See also Baylis-Flannery v. DeWilde (Tri Community Physiotherapy), 2003 HRTO 28). The same would no doubt be true regarding the term “your people”. The highly negative context with respect to the group in George, however, is in stark contrast to the case at hand. In this case, Ms. Cole’s conversation about the Ancient Egyptian’s numerical achievement was complimentary, not derogatory. In the context of their earlier, friendly discussion in which the applicant raised his background and the fact that he was Egyptian, and in which they together praised what they both believed to be a numeric achievement of Ancient Egypt, I find that Ms. Cole did not include the phrase, “your people”, in reference to any inability of Egyptians, and certainly not to any inability of Egyptians to spell.

Mason v. Peel Heating Service Experts, 2012 HRTO 1865 (CanLII)

[13] During his examination-in-chief, the applicant testified that the word “Jewish” came up at the end of the interview and he was told “I don’t know that we can hire you people,” “you don’t fit our company profile” and “you look kind of old or something in that manner”. The Tribunal asked the applicant who made the alleged comments, to which the applicant responded he believed it was “Wayne”. He testified that “Wayne” said “you look kind of old” or “something in that manner” but noted that it may not have been those exact words but words to that effect. Further, he testified that “Wayne” told him, “your appearance does not fit our profile”.

...

[18] Wayne, the applicant alleged during cross-examination, handed the applicant a note with his email address on it so that the applicant could email his references to him. Before handing him the note, the applicant testified that Wayne told him “I’m not sure if we can hire you people without references and we’re Lennox and we can’t hire just anybody”. There were, the applicant testified, no questions about what he did in other jobs, or past working experience, but they did ask him why he had short work experience with other employers. They did not, the applicant testified in cross-examination, ask him if he had residential experience. Wayne told the applicant that the company does background checks. The applicant testified during his cross-examination that he did not provide any references and stated during the hearing, “Why would I?”.

...

[40] Mr. Fagan decided not to move forward with the applicant’s application, he testified during his examination-in-chief, because of the applicant’s lack of residential experience and his overall demeanour. Mr. Fagan denied using the word “Jewish”, denied referring to the applicant as “old” and denied referring to the applicant as a group of “you people” saying that he never uses terminology like that. Mr. Fagan denied telling the applicant to “get out” as alleged in the Application; instead, the interview concluded with them shaking hands at the end. Mr. Fagan’s recollection of the interview is as set out in his statement, prepared for Mr. Good, which was introduced as an exhibit. In response to a question from the Tribunal, Mr. Fagan testified that he did not speak with Mr. Good during his investigation as Mr. Good contacted Mr. Tomalin who then spoke with Mr. Fagan. This was because the complaint email was about Mr. Tomalin and had confused the two of them, as it was himself and not Mr. Tomalin who had met with the applicant the longest.

...

[53] Clearly comments about being “Jewish”, looking old, and “you people” would amount to a violation of the Code if the allegations are proven. See, for example, Noble et. al. v. Alley, 1950 CanLII 13 (SCC), [1951] S.C.R. 64 and Byers v. Fiddick’s Nursing Home, 2012 HRTO 952.

[54] However, in this case, I do not find that the applicant has made out a prima facie case of discrimination. This is due to the fact that his evidence, from his initial complaint email, to his Application and from examination-in-chief to cross-examination was very inconsistent in attributing who made the allegedly discriminatory remarks.