Systemic Discrimination (Meaning): Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users v. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, 2015 BCSC 534 (CanLII)<ref name="Drug Users"/>== | ==Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users v. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, 2015 BCSC 534 (CanLII)<ref name="Drug Users"/>== | ||
[106] Despite these observations, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to prove a prima facie case of discrimination. In my view, not only did the Tribunal err in setting a standard of proof for prima facie discrimination that was too onerous, it also erred in concluding there was no evidence to meet the third step. | |||
[107] Remembering it is important that “evidentiary requirements … be sensitive to the nature of the evidence likely to be available” (Radek at para. 509), the Tribunal erred in not recognizing that, on the whole of the evidence before it, the “potentiality” to which it refers (in paras. 645 and 660 of its Decision) is the reality that exists. The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence proving that individuals were subjected to adverse treatment because of their race or physical or mental disability. However, that conclusion was drawn without sufficiently taking into account the nature of the adverse treatment and the social environment in which it was taking place. The Program, and thus the adverse treatment, was rooted in two pieces of legislation associated with the street homeless. Applying the correct legal test to the facts leads to the inevitable conclusion that individuals of Aboriginal ancestry and individuals with mental or physical disabilities are differently and disproportionately impacted by the Program. | |||
[108] Whether employing common sense or drawing a reasonable inference, the petitioners have proven the third step in the prima facie test for discrimination. The findings of fact made by the Tribunal about the activities that constituted adverse treatment (for example, waking up individuals sleeping in public parks and next to buildings) combined with the demographics of the street homeless population viewed in the context of the data collected by ambassadors and Dr. Miller’s evidence, does demonstrate that the personal characteristics of Class members was a factor in their suffering adverse treatment. There is no need for “something more”. | |||
| Line 13: | Line 18: | ||
<ref name="Drug Users">Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users v. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, 2015 BCSC 534 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/gh5ck>, retrieved on 2024-06-10</ref> | <ref name="Drug Users">Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users v. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, 2015 BCSC 534 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/gh5ck>, retrieved on 2024-06-10</ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 19:53, 10 June 2024
| Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2024-06-26 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 2383 |
| Page Categories: | [Human Rights (LTB)] |
| Citation: | Systemic Discrimination (Meaning), CLNP 2383, <https://rvt.link/c0>, retrieved on 2024-06-26 |
| Editor: | Sharvey |
| Last Updated: | 2024/06/10 |
Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users v. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, 2015 BCSC 534 (CanLII)[1]
[106] Despite these observations, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to prove a prima facie case of discrimination. In my view, not only did the Tribunal err in setting a standard of proof for prima facie discrimination that was too onerous, it also erred in concluding there was no evidence to meet the third step.
[107] Remembering it is important that “evidentiary requirements … be sensitive to the nature of the evidence likely to be available” (Radek at para. 509), the Tribunal erred in not recognizing that, on the whole of the evidence before it, the “potentiality” to which it refers (in paras. 645 and 660 of its Decision) is the reality that exists. The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence proving that individuals were subjected to adverse treatment because of their race or physical or mental disability. However, that conclusion was drawn without sufficiently taking into account the nature of the adverse treatment and the social environment in which it was taking place. The Program, and thus the adverse treatment, was rooted in two pieces of legislation associated with the street homeless. Applying the correct legal test to the facts leads to the inevitable conclusion that individuals of Aboriginal ancestry and individuals with mental or physical disabilities are differently and disproportionately impacted by the Program.
[108] Whether employing common sense or drawing a reasonable inference, the petitioners have proven the third step in the prima facie test for discrimination. The findings of fact made by the Tribunal about the activities that constituted adverse treatment (for example, waking up individuals sleeping in public parks and next to buildings) combined with the demographics of the street homeless population viewed in the context of the data collected by ambassadors and Dr. Miller’s evidence, does demonstrate that the personal characteristics of Class members was a factor in their suffering adverse treatment. There is no need for “something more”.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users v. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, 2015 BCSC 534 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/gh5ck>, retrieved on 2024-06-10
