CRARR is resorting legal challenges as a way to fight against racism more effectively. Despite public discourse on equality and integration, and even with many equity laws and policies adopted, with the best of intentions, these grand notions of human rights and justice fail to be translated into daily practices. Tangible reforms and institutional changes in favor of inclusion and equality remain nebulous, if not stalled due to a growing anti-human rights climate (which many analysts link to the globalization, the aging of the population and politicians' linking of diversity and immigration with crime).
As a result, it has become necessary to resort to legal actions to fight discrimination. There would not have been any progress in civil rights, and particularly in the promotion of equality, if certain people or groups of people remained passive or indifferent. This was the case of racial desegregation which occurred in the United States in the 50’s, and was also true with gay marriage, which became legalized this past decade.
CRARR also seeks, through its assistance service for victims of discrimination and legal interventions, to expand civil rights jurisprudence and incorporate innovative social science data on race and other discrimination in court decisions, especially in areas such as systemic discrimination, hate crime, school sanctions and biased policing. These are issues which many institutions have avoided to address for different reasons.
Through this page, CRARR will emphasize cases in which it, or one of its clients, is involved, either as plaintiff or defendant/respondent. Whether before common law courts or administrative tribunals, these files reveal the nature and scope of racial barriers, particularly systemic racism, and call for vigiliance from us and more accountability from our institutions. We encourage you to get acquainted with these cases and decisions, to participate in hearings as observers and interested citizens, and, depending on your resources, intervene in the cases where permitted by law.
QUEBEC HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL
1 Notre Dame East, Suite 13.03, Montreal
Racial Discrimination in Education (Class Reassignment)
AUGUST 20, 2010, 9:30 AM: Case brought by the Quebec Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission on behalf of a Hispanic-Iranian youth against the Marguerite Bourgeoys School Board, for the youth's removal from a Spanish class without objective assessment of his Spanish fluency and on the basis of his Hispanic background. CRARR has filed a factum to stress the School Board's institutional liability for discrimination and systemic deficiencies on diversity despite having a multiracial student population, as well as the Vice-Principal's responsibility. At this hearing, the School Board is asking the Tribunal to rule on CRARR's standing as a complainant acting on behalf of the youth. Damages sought by the Commission: $20,000. Damages sought by CRARR: $30,000
SEPTEMBER 8, 2010, 9:30 AM: At this hearing, the School Board is asking the Tribunal to dismiss the case due the excessive delay on the human rights commission's part in investigating the case, which was filed in 2005.
Racial Slurs and Public Denigration of Professional Status
AUGUST 30, 2010, 9:30 AM: Case brought by the Quebec Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission on behalf of a Black Montreal Transit Authority Inspector against a tow truck driver and his employer, for racial insults when the driver used the N word and threw away the two citations given by the inspector. CRARR has filed a factum to stress how the driver's conduct undermines the Black officer's authority and abilities and reflects a broader bias against Black law enforcement officers. Damages sought: $9,500
Racism in Employment
END OF NOVEMBER 2010: Case brought by the Quebec Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission on behalf of 15 Chinese manufacturing workers against Calego International and an employment agency. CRARR has filed its own factum to demonstrate how this kind of treatment reflects historical and contemporary racial bias towards Chinese and immigrant workers in Canada. Damages sought: $164,000
Hate Incident
FALL 2010: Case brought by the Quebec Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission on behalf of a Chinese couple in the town of Saint-Sauveur (north of Montreal) who was subject to assault and racial insults in a park by three white youths. The Commission seeks $4,000 in damages from the two young women who assaulted the couple; CRARR seeks $10,000 from the two for their hate-motivated and violent violation of the couple's civil rights.
COURT OF APPEAL
100 Notre Dame Est, Montreal
Racial Discrimination in Education
SEPTEMBER 7, 2010, 9:30 AM: Hearing into the Marguerite-Bourgeoy's School Board's motion to seek leave to appeal the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal's decision awarded Maria Gallardo and her son Luc Cagadoc $17,000 in damages last April (the case involving a Filipino-Canadian boy eating with a fork and spoon). The Board's challenges the Tribunal's jurisdiction, by arguing that due to the human rights commission's investigation and subsequent dismissal of many aspects of the complaint, the Tribunal could not rule on these aspects. The case can create an important precedent for all victims of discrimination due to the Commission's practice of ruling in favor of parts of a complaint and leaving the complainant to go at his or her expense before the Tribunal. For more information: http://www.crarr.org/?q=node/418
Racial Profiling in Policing
FEBRUARY 2011, 9:30 AM: Hearing into the 2003 racial profiling case brought by CRARR on behalf of Saint-Michel public housing Black youths. As part of its dozen procedural manoeuvres to prevent the courts from ruling on the merit of racial profiling cases brought by the human rights commission before the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal (these legal actions are fully supported by the City), the City of Montreal is essentially arguing that once a person is fined and found guilty of a penal offense (i.e. a ticket for violating a city by-law), he or she cannot use human rights legislation to challenge the police action giving rise to that offense as being biased. This case is an appeal filed by the City against the Quebec Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission and CRARR; the City has consistently lost in lower courts in this case in its procedural positioning.
POLICE ETHICS COMMITTEE
500 René-Lévesque West, Montreal
Racial Profiling and Abusive Fine in downtown Montreal
December 22, 2010, 9:30 AM:Hearing into a police ethics complaint filed by two young Black men assisted by CRARR against two Montreal police officers. The two brothers drove downtown in a Mercedes on a Saturday afternoon in Fall 2007 and was tailed by a police vehicle for several blocks. When they parked their car to go shopping, the police car parallel-parked next to them; when the brothers came over to enquire if something was wrong, they were fined each for $37 for walking on the street. The Police Ethics Commissioner ruled that the officers abused their powers, among other charges. A civil rights complaint has also been filed by CRARR against the City and the two officers. NOTE: One of the officers was already the subject of a police ethics sanction in a 2005 case launched by CRARR on behalf of a Black university student who was stopped and violently detained, in a barbershop in the St-Laurent borough. This same officer is also the subject of a third civil rights complaint for racial profiling and abusive detention of a Black man while driving downtown with his white girlfriend. See Also: Civil Rights Advisory on this web page
<
