Derogatory Comments (Nigger): Difference between revisions

From Riverview Legal Group
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
Line 18: Line 18:
[68] This Tribunal also has found that the term “you people”, when applied to a racialized group, as I have found in the instant case, similarly represents racially discriminatory language: see <i>Bayliss-Flannery v. DeWilde (Tri Community Physiotherapy), 2003 HRTO 28</i><ref name="Baylis-Flannery"/> at para. 139. I find such language especially to be racially discriminatory in the instant case when combined with references to Black persons as being “stupid” or not being able to do anything right.
[68] This Tribunal also has found that the term “you people”, when applied to a racialized group, as I have found in the instant case, similarly represents racially discriminatory language: see <i>Bayliss-Flannery v. DeWilde (Tri Community Physiotherapy), 2003 HRTO 28</i><ref name="Baylis-Flannery"/> at para. 139. I find such language especially to be racially discriminatory in the instant case when combined with references to Black persons as being “stupid” or not being able to do anything right.


:...


<span style=background:yellow>[88] In the end, in my view, the amount of $20,000 as an award of compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect is appropriate in the circumstances.</span> I also grant the applicant’s request for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on these amounts, calculated in accordance with the rates established under the Ontario Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.


<ref name="George">George v. 1735475 Ontario Limited, 2017 HRTO 761 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/h4m00>, retrieved on 2023-01-09</ref>
<ref name="George">George v. 1735475 Ontario Limited, 2017 HRTO 761 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/h4m00>, retrieved on 2023-01-09</ref>

Revision as of 01:03, 10 January 2023


Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved: 2024-11-27
CLNP Page ID: 2042
Page Categories:
Citation: Derogatory Comments (Nigger), CLNP 2042, <>, retrieved on 2024-11-27
Editor: P08916
Last Updated: 2023/01/10

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today


George v. 1735475 Ontario Limited, 2017 HRTO 761 (CanLII)[1]

[42] I also found the drywall subcontractor to be a credible witness. He was a reluctant witness, and had to be summonsed to testify before me. His evidence about the incident where Mr. Seto used the term “nigger” towards the applicant was clear and was placed in a specific context. My observation of this witness while he was in the stand supports that he was genuinely and appropriately offended by this racial comment, and the emotions expressed by this witness at the hearing were consistent with this reaction. I appreciate that this witness’ evidence regarding the incident where he recalls Mr. Seto calling the applicant a “nigger” differs from the context provided by the applicant in relation to the first incident raised in the Application about being called a “nigger.” In this regard, I note that the applicant testified that the first incident raised in the Application was not the first or only time he was called a “nigger” by Mr. Seto. I also note that it is clear from the differing contexts provided by the applicant and the drywall subcontractor that there obviously is no issue of the two of them colluding in their evidence. In the end, in my view, I find that the evidence given by the drywall subcontractor supports and corroborates the applicant’s allegation that Mr. Seto used the term “nigger” to refer to the applicant. While I appreciate Mr. Seto’s position that the drywall subcontractor is simply a disgruntled ex-employee, in my view that does not provide a sufficient basis upon which to discount this witness’ evidence.

...

[67] In particular, I find that the racial epithets used by Mr. Seto toward the applicant were not only objectively serious, but were egregious. With regard to Mr. Seto’s use of the term “nigger” and “worthless nigger” and “niggers can’t do nothing right” towards the applicant, I adopt and endorse the following comments about the use of this term as made by this Tribunal in Knights v. Debt Collect Inc., 2017 HRTO 211[2] at para. 21:

The N-word carries with it the baggage of centuries of slavery, racism, abuse and disrespect. The term is more than simply hurtful towards African-Canadians: it demeans, humiliates and asserts a threatening sense of racial superiority. It is without a doubt discriminatory language only made more egregious by the addition of the qualifiers “stupid” and “f***ing” to amplify the implicit threat carried by the N-word itself.

[68] This Tribunal also has found that the term “you people”, when applied to a racialized group, as I have found in the instant case, similarly represents racially discriminatory language: see Bayliss-Flannery v. DeWilde (Tri Community Physiotherapy), 2003 HRTO 28[3] at para. 139. I find such language especially to be racially discriminatory in the instant case when combined with references to Black persons as being “stupid” or not being able to do anything right.

...

[88] In the end, in my view, the amount of $20,000 as an award of compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect is appropriate in the circumstances. I also grant the applicant’s request for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on these amounts, calculated in accordance with the rates established under the Ontario Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.

[1] [2] [3]

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 George v. 1735475 Ontario Limited, 2017 HRTO 761 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/h4m00>, retrieved on 2023-01-09
  2. 2.0 2.1 Knights v. DebtCollect Inc., 2017 HRTO 211 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/gxl1m>, retrieved on 2023-01-09
  3. 3.0 3.1 Baylis-Flannery v. DeWilde (Tri Community Physiotherapy), 2003 HRTO 28 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/1r5w0>, retrieved on 2023-01-09