For
Immediate Release
December 13, 2012
Lawyers
Appeal of Racial Profiling Judicial Review Decision to be heard by the Ontario
Court of Appeal: C55734 Pieters and Noble
v. Peel Law Association
Date: Tuesday December 18, 2012
Time: 10:30 a.m.
Place: Courtroom One, Osgoode Hall, 130
Queen Street West, Toronto
On May 16, 2008, Lawyers
Selwyn Pieters and Brian Noble attended with other lawyers representing the
Ontario Human Rights Commission, Peel Regional Police and Dufferin Peel
Catholic District School Board at the Ontario Court of Justice at the Brampton
Courthouse to argue a production motion in F.
(K.) v. Peel Regional Police Services Board (2008), 2008 CarswellOnt 5041,
2008 ONCJ 382, a racial profiling case involving Peel Police and the School Board.
During the break in proceedings all of the parties entered the Peel Law
Association Lounge to await recall by the Applications Judge.
Ms. Melissa Firth,
who is a librarian/administrator with the Peel Law Association, approached Mr. Pieters,
Mr. Noble and Mr. Paul Walrond (Pieters student) demanding that they identify
themselves in the Brampton Courthouse’s Lawyer’s Lounge. Mr. Pieters and Mr.
Walrond are Black men who have their hair in the dreadlocked hairstyle. All
were dressed in business suits but not gowned as gowning is not required in the
Ontario Court of Justice.
The policy of the lounge and library is only lawyers
and law students are permitted to use the facilities, paralegals and members of
the public are not. There were a number of other individuals in the lounge who
had been unknown to the librarian at the time, including two white women (the
lawyer and a Human Resources Manager from Peel Police), a racialized man who
self-identified as South Asian (lawyer for the Human Rights Commission). These
individuals were neither questioned nor asked to produce their identification.
The incident was unnecessary and humiliating. The Law Association and Ms. Firth
were accused of racial profiling.
The Human Rights
Tribunal of Ontario found that Pieters and Noble rights to be free from racial
discrimination were violated under the Human Rights Code in that their race and
colour were factors which led to Ms. Firth’s decision to question them and
affected the manner in which she questioned and interacted with them. It ordered
the Peel Law Association to pay compensation of $2000.00 respectively. The
Divisional Court overturned that decision ordering Pieters and Noble to pay
$20,000.00 in legal costs to the Peel Law Association and Ms. Firth.
Whilst racial
profiling against African Canadians, Aboriginals and other racial minorities in
the provision of goods, services and facilities is widespread and pervasive,
there is a dearth of racial profiling litigation in Canada.
This case is one of
the first racial profiling cases that does not involved the police or other law
enforcement agents or officials to be heard by the Court of Appeal.
This is a case
where due to the Applicants’ status as human rights litigators they were able
to identify, name, challenge and litigate racial profiling in the context of
their positions as lawyers being treated differently based on race and colour.
The Court of Appeal
decision in this case will be very important to the emerging jurisprudence on
racial profiling from which lawyers and other Black professional are not
immuned: “The legal profession has made no concerted effort to rid itself of
the racism inherent in the practice. As
the evidence in this case illustrates, racialized lawyers continue to face
barriers not experienced by their colleagues.” Benchers Clayton Ruby and
Constance Backhouse writing in the recent Law Society of Upper Canada, Appeal
Panel decision of Law Society of Upper
Canada v. Selwyn Milan McSween, 2012 ONLSAP 3.
There are
four intervenors arguing in this case:
Ontario Human Rights Commission,
Just Society
South
Asian Law Association and
B'Nai Brith Canada
For more
information, please contact:
Selwyn A. Pieters,
B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary
Public
-
30 -
Resources:
Pieters
v. Peel Law Association,
2010 HRTO 2411
(CanLII) —
2010-12-03
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario — Ontario
lounge — personal
— identification — library — racially
profiled
Peel
Law Association v. Pieters,
2012 ONSC 1048
(CanLII) —
2012-02-13
Divisional Court — Ontario
lounge — prima
facie case of discrimination — library — complainants
— differential treatment
Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A. (Toronto), LL.B. (Osgoode), L.E.C. (U.W.I). Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario). Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana and Republic of Trinidad and Tobago). A significant portion of Selwyn's work involves representation of persons in racial discrimination / harassment / profiling cases in the Federal and Provincial Courts and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. Selwyn has appeared at all levels of courts, including the Ontario Court of Appeal in Freeman-Maloy v. Marsden 267 D.L.R. (4th) 37, 208 O.A.C. 307 (C.A.); Bangoura v. Washington Post(2005) 202 O.A.C. 76, (2005) 17 C.P.C. (6th) 30 (Ont.C.A.), the Federal Court of Appeal in The Honourable Sinclair Stevens v. The Conservative Party of Canada, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1890, 2005 FCA 383 and Supreme Court of Canada in Attorney General of Ontario v. Michael J. Fraser, et al., 2011 SCC 20. His current cases include the competing rights case of Taylor-Baptistev. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2012 HRTO 1393 that is at the reconsideration stage at the HRTO; Roachet al. v. Canada 2012 CarswellOnt 7799, 2012 ONSC 352 (ON S.C.) which is a constitutional challenge to the oath in the Citizenship Act. Selwyn is also acting as co-counsel for the families of three deceased persons killed during a civil demonstration in Linden, Guyana.
