Isolated Comments

🥷 Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2025 ©
Date Retrieved:	2025-06-07
CLNP Page ID:	2508
Page Categories:	Human Rights
Citation:	Isolated Comments, CLNP 2508, <https://rvt.link/fq>, retrieved on 2025-06-07
Editor:	MKent
Last Updated:	2025/06/06

Trang v. Alberta (Edmonton Remand Centre), 2010 ABQB 6 (CanLII)

[1125] In Dhanjal v. Air Canada, [1996] C.H.R.D. No. 4 the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal concluded that the “conduct must include a racial dimension and have the effect of humiliating or offending the person who is the victim” (at para. 209).

[1126] The Tribunal, as noted above, held that the context was very important (para. 212 and 214-215):

Thus, when it takes the form of jokes in bad taste, they must be persistent and frequent to constitute harassment. An isolated racial slur, even one that is very harsh, will not by itself constitute harassment within the meaning of the Act: Pitawanakwat v. Canada (1994), 1992 CanLII 7190 (CHRT), 19 CHRR D/110, par. 40‑41 (overturned in part on other grounds by the Federal Court in (1994) F.T.R. 11).

...

As it was rightly pointed out in C.D.P. v. Commission Scolaire Deux-Montagnes (1993), 1993 CanLII 1202 (QC TDP), 19 CHRR D/1, "[Translation] the durableness that oppressive conduct must also entail in order to constitute harassment may therefore be established in some cases by the repetition of certain acts, in some cases by their seriousness, insofar as their effects then have some continuity". Thus, if a racial slur were accompanied by an assault, for example, this incident alone could constitute harassment, in view of the profound and lasting prejudicial effects that such extreme conduct would be likely to have on the victim. See also, in this connection, in the context of sexual harassment: Kotyk v. C.E.I.C. (1983), 1983 CanLII 4708 (CHRT), 4 CHRR D/1416, par. 12251.

In short, the more serious the conduct the less need there is for it to be repeated, and, conversely, the less serious it is, the greater the need to demonstrate its persistence in order to create a hostile work environment and constitute racial harassment. See, in this connection, A. Aggarwal, Sexual Harassment in the Workplace, 2nd ed., Toronto, Butterworths, 1992, p. 84; M. Drapeau, Le harcèlement sexuel au travail, Éd. Yvon Blais, 1991, p. 102.

(...)

[1129] In the workplace context, a pattern of behaviour is generally required, and usually a single episode or one in the heat of the moment will not necessarily constitute discrimination.

Latronico v. York Region District School Board, 2011 HRTO 2012 (CanLII)

[28] While the Tribunal has accepted a single comment as a Code breach, it also has considered context and incorporated the analysis of a British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal decision Pardo v. School District No. 43, 2003 BCHRT 71, in which that Tribunal stated that “all the circumstances must be taken into account when considering whether a single comment could constitute a contravention of the [British Columbia Human Rights] Code.” See B.C. v. London Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 1644.

[29] I find that the repeating back of an insult several times in this circumstance is similar to a single occurrence in that by both men’s accounts the exchange occurred rapidly and within a few minutes. However, given my finding that the applicant initiated the insulting words in a heated altercation, I find that Mr. Paz repeating the words back in frustration was within the bounds of a reasonable response. See Berisa v. Toronto (City), 2011 HRTO 912 (comment fell within the bounds of a reasonable response). Therefore, in the context of the altercation and under the circumstances, even if Mr. Paz repeated the word “wop” back to the applicant several times I do not find that those utterances would rise to the level of discrimination under the Code.

Pardo v. School District No. 43, 2003 BCHRT 71 (CanLII)

[11] The Respondents have cited three human rights decisions which concluded that one isolated comment does not amount to a contravention of the relevant legislation: Quebec v. Bombardier (1983), 1983 CanLII 4750 (QC CQ), 4 C.H.R.R. D/1447 (the supervisor subsequently apologized for his remark); Nimako v. Canadian National Hotels (1987), 1987 CanLII 8551 (ON HRT), 8 C.H.R.R. D/3985 (one racial slur does not amount to harassment); and Parsonage v. Canadian Tire Corp. (1991), 1995 CanLII 18170 (ON HRT), 28 C.H.R.R. D/42 (a single insulting joke with racial overtones does not amount to a violation of the legislation).

[12] In my view, all the circumstances must be taken into account when considering whether a single comment could constitute a contravention of the Code. Without suggesting that this is an exhaustive list, some of the relevant factors would be the egregiousness or virulence of the comment, the nature of the relationship between the involved parties, the context in which the comment was made, whether an apology was offered, and whether or not the recipient of the comment was a member of a group historically discriminated against.

Berisa v. Toronto (City), 2011 HRTO 912 (CanLII)

[70] In Trang v. Alberta (Edmonton Remand Centre), 2010 ABQB 6 (CanLII) the Court states that in an employment context, an isolated racial slur, even one that is very harsh does not necessary amount to discrimination (paragraph 1129).

[71] Similarly in Dhanjal v. Air Canada, [1996] C.H.R.D. No. 4, the Board concluded that an isolated slur, will not by itself constitute harassment (paragraph 212) and even one uttered by management does not necessarily trigger the duty of due diligence (paragraph 246).

[72] In Banwait v. Forsyth, 2008 BCHRT 81, the Tribunal found that the applicant’s colleague had referred to him as a “fucking Hindu” during the course of a heated exchange. The Tribunal concluded that this single racial slur did not constitute a violation of the Code.

Banwait v. Forsyth (No. 2), 2008 BCHRT 81 (CanLII)

[165] Mr. Banwait filed his complaint under s. 8 of the Code, alleging that Mr. Forsyth discriminated against him with respect to a service customarily available to the public. Mr. Forsyth was certainly providing a service to Mr. Banwait on July 19, 2005. However, it is important to look at the full context of events. Specifically, the slur was made in the context of an isolated work place incident which escalated due to the actions and reactions of both parties. This does not, in any way, excuse Mr. Forsyth’s issuing a racial slur: that comment is degrading, insulting and unacceptable.

[166] It is clear that the incident with Mr. Forsyth, coupled with the events that followed, had an extremely negative impact on Mr. Banwait, a proud and honest man. As noted above, this is a relevant factor and one that I have taken into account in my analysis of whether the one incident which I have found to have occurred constitutes a violation of the Code.