Isolated Comments

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.