Update: CRARR granted intervener status by the Supreme Court of Canada in Latif v. Bombardier

On October 16, 2014, Mr. Justice Wagner of the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on applications for leave to intervene in Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, et al. v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), et al. (Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave) by six intervenors:

AND UPON APPLICATION by the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario for an extension of time to serve and file a motion for leave to intervene; 

AND THE MATERIAL FILED having been read;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion for extension of time to serve and file a motion for leave to intervene of the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario is granted.

The motions for leave to intervene of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Center for Research-Action on Race Relations, the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, and the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario are granted and the said interveners or groups of interveners shall be entitled to each serve and file a factum not to exceed ten (10) pages in length on or before December 11, 2014.

Interveners shall consult to avoid repetition in their written arguments.

The requests to present oral argument are deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the interveners.

The interveners are not entitled to raise new issues or to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.

Pursuant to Rule 59(1)(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, the interveners shall pay to the appellants and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondents by their interventions.The respondent, Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), is permitted to serve and file a single factum not exceeding five (5) pages in reply to all interveners on or before January 8, 2015.Allowed

The Center for Research-Action on Race Relations, one of the parties granted intervenor status prepared the press release below:

Republished from: <http://www.crarr.org/?q=node/19630> October 17, 2014

Montreal, October 17, 2014 --- The Supreme Court has granted CRARR intervener status in the case Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse et al c. Bombardier et al.

The case involves a Canadian pilot of Pakistani background, Mr. Javed Latif, who in 2004 was offered a job to pilot Bombardier Challenger aircrafts and who was denied training (which took place in Quebec, Canada and Texas, U.S.A) by Bombardier due his being listed as a security threat by U.S. authorities. (In order to access training under a U.S. Federal Aviation Authority license, he had to pass a security check required by the U.S. government’s Alien Flight Students Program given that part of the training was to be offered in the U.S.)

As a result, he was denied employment and had problems finding work as a pilot. He filed a complaint of ethnic discrimination with the Quebec Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission, which upheld his case and brought it before the Human Rights Tribunal. In 2009, the Tribunal ruled in his favour and ordered Bombardier to pay him $385,000 in damages and to cease U.S. national security screening criteria in dealing with Canadian applications for a pilot training license.

Bombardier appealed the ruling to the Quebec Court of Appeal, which quashed the Tribunal's decision in the fall of 2013 and left Mr. Latif with no compensation. The Human Rights Commission sought leave to appeal the Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court, seeking the latter’s clarification on a number of issues.

One of these issues, which has far reaching consequences for all discrimination cases in Quebec and elsewhere, is whether the Quebec Court of Appeal erred in requiring evidence of a “causal connection” between ethnic origin and discrimination. Canadian jurisprudence on discrimination usually requires evidence that a ground, such as race or gender, be only a factor in an action or practice, which is a lower threshold to prove discrimination.

While the Quebec Court Appeal requires a “causal connection”, the Ontario Court of Appeal in June 2013 overturned a similar test in last year’s groundbreaking racial profiling case of Peel Law Association v. Pieters. In that case, which involves a highly respected civil rights lawyer Selwyn Pieters and another Black individual being racially profiled by a librarian, the Ontario Court unanimously maintained a more liberal position and ruled against the lower Court’s requirement of a “causal nexus between the arbitrary distinction based on a prohibited ground and the disadvantage suffered.” In the words of Mr. Justice Juriansz:

I do not think it acceptable, however, to attach the modifier “causal” to “nexus”. Doing so seems to me to elevate the test beyond what the law requires. The Divisional Court’s requirement of a “causal nexus” or a “causal link” between the adverse treatment and a prohibited ground seems counter to the evolution of human rights jurisprudence, which focuses on the discriminatory effects of conduct, rather than on intention and direct cause.

The consequences for civil rights are obvious if the more conservative and restrictive standard of proof of the Quebec Court of Appeal is allowed to stand. The case also marks the first time that the Supreme Court will address racial profiling.

CRARR's co-counsels in this case are Mr. Pieters and Aymar Missakila. CRARR is the only Quebec intervener and will make the case for a “consistent, uniform and unequivocal evidentiary requirement for assessing discrimination claims (that) can more effectively establish a harmonized and coherent national approach to guide all equality-seeking individuals and groups as well as all courts and tribunals in Quebec (and) in the rest of Canada, in their common pursuit of the equal protection and benefit of the law.”

“It is a rare opportunity for the Supreme Court, and for our country as a whole, to address racial profiling and discrimination in this decade. We are very honored and grateful to have as co-counsel Mr. Selwyn Pieters, who has made significant contributions to the advancement of racial equality in our justice system and beyond,” said CRARR's Executive Director Fo Niemi.

Other groups that were also granted intervener status are the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, and the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario.

CRARR welcomes donations to help defray the costs of this intervention.

********

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).

Selwyn has appeared at all levels of courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada in Attorney General of Ontario v. Michael J. Fraser, et al., 2011 SCC 20, 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. He represented Correctional Manager Mariann Taylor-Baptiste in the ground-breaking competing rights case of Taylor-Baptiste v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2012 CarswellOnt 8965, 2012 HRTO 1393, 2012 C.L.L.C. 230-022 reconsideration denied in 2013 CarswellOnt 1033, 2013 HRTO 180, 2013 C.L.L.C. 230-019 at the HRTO; Civil Rights lawyer Charles Roach in the Oath cases of McAteer, Topey, Dror-Natan v. Canada (Attorney General) 2013 CarswellOnt 13165, 2013 ONSC 5895 (ON S.C.) and Roach et 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 most recently litigated the racial profiling case of:

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 CarswellOnt 12134, 2013 HRTO 1472

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 CarswellOnt 11941

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 1102

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 73

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2012 CarswellOnt 11158

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, [2011] O.H.R.T.D. No. 618, 2011 HRTO 410

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2011 ONCJ 143, 2011 CarswellOnt 1980, 2011 ONCJ 143, 274 C.C.C. (3d) 272 (Ont. CJ.)

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 CarswellOnt 9121, 2010 HRTO 2349

M. (R.)v. Toronto Police Services Board was recently settled to the satisfaction of all parties and the terms of settlement reached remain confidential

Selwyn is the successful litigant in the recent racial profiling case involving carding of three Black men: Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 CarswellOnt 7881, 2013 ONCA 396, 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204, 116 O.R. (3d) 81, 306 O.A.C. 314, 9 C.C.E.L. (4th) 233, [2013] O.J. No. 2695.

Selwyn has provided crucial legal advise to clients duringhigh risk situations such as gun calls, hostage taking, barricaded persons, mentally disturbed persons, high risk arrests and public order control in situations where there is significant public disorder, lawlessness, personal injury and property damage. Charges of cause disturbance and assault police can be pretextual racial profiling charges: R. v. Roach, 2005 O.J. No. 5278 (Ont. C.J.) (Criminal Law - Causing a Disturbance); R. v. Ramsaroop, 2009 CarswellOnt 5281, 2009 ONCJ 406 (Ont. CJ.); R. v. Taylor, 2010 CarswellOnt 6584, 2010 ONCJ 396, [2010] O.J. No. 3794 (Ont. CJ.)

Selwyn argued on racial profiling includes: R. v. Steele, 2010 ONSC 233 (ON S.C.) and R. v. Egonu, 2007 CanLII 30475 (ON SC) - Driving while black and R. v. Bramwell-Cole [2010] O.J. No. 5838 (ON S.C.) - walking while black.

Selwyn has appeared in  Coroners' Inquest including: Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Negus Topey (May 02, 2005, Coroners' Court, Dr. K.A. Acheson) Ruling on Application for Standing; Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Dwight Haughton (Coroners' Court, Dr. Evans) Ruling on Application for Standing; Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Jeffrey Reodica(May 04, 2006, Coroners' Court, Dr. B. Porter) Ruling on Application for Standing

Selwyn also acted as co-counsel with C. Nigel Hughes for the families of three deceased persons killed during a civil demonstration in Linden, Guyana, at the Linden Commission of Inquiry. Selwyn is currently co-counsel with Brian M. Clarke representing the Guyana Trades Union Congress in the Walter Anthony Rodney Commission of Inquiry in Georgetown, Guyana.