In Paquette v Amaruk Wilderness and another (No. 4) (“Paquette”), the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) considered a discrimination complaint by Bethany Paquette (the “Complainant”) after her employment application to Amaruk Wilderness Corp. (“Amaruk”), a wilderness adventure company, was rejected. The Complainant alleged that she was refused employment, in part, because of her religion and status as a recent graduate of Trinity Western University. In the decision, released on March 2, 2016, the Tribunal held that Amaruk, through the actions of its employees and director, had discriminated against the Complainant on the basis of religion. After Amaruk made preliminary objections as to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the complaint, which were dismissed, the company and its legal counsel withdrew from the hearing. The hearing of the complaint then proceeded in Amaruk’s absence.
While cases of discrimination against individuals on the basis of religious belief during the course of a hiring process are not usual, this case serves as a reminder that employers need to conduct their hiring practices in a way that does not discriminate on a presumption of religion or religious affiliation. As this case shows, Tribunals may award damages to complainants when an employer’s (or potential employer’s) conduct causes harm to an individual’s identity on the basis of their religious beliefs. Where applicants can demonstrate prima facie discrimination on these grounds, an employer may be subject to liability. This Charity & NFP Bulletin will review the Paquette decision, the principles of which may be also applicable to Ontario employers including charities and not-for-profits.
For the balance of the Bulletin, please see Charity & NFP Law Bulletin No. 383.