Call Us Now


Proving Discrimination in Human Rights Cases

Posted On: January, 23 2015

The Ontario human rights case of Islam v. Big Inc., 2013 HRTO 2009 garnered recent media attention due to the cumulatively large damage award made to the applicants.  However, this case also provides a useful reminder of the evidentiary burden on the parties to prove or defend a case of discrimination before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The Case

This case involved discrimination against three employees at Le Papillion restaurant in Toronto.  Islam began as three separate human rights applications that were eventually consolidated into one case as each separate matter involved similar allegations against the same respondent. 

The applicants in Islam were Mr. Malik (head Chef); Mr. Hossain (sous chef); and Mr. Islam (cook).  All three alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of a number of prohibited grounds including race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and creed.  The applicants also alleged harassment, poisoned work environment, failure to investigate their complaints of discrimination, and reprisals.

These allegations stemmed from a number of workplace incidents including a requirement to eat pork contrary to the applicants’ religious dietary restrictions; an English only rule in the kitchen; threats to replace the applicants with white staff; and the applicants’ discriminatory terminations.

In Islam the Tribunal ultimately found for the applicants and awarded damages for lost wages, general damages for an infringement of their right to be free from discrimination, and concluded that the employer failed to investigate the employees’ complaints of discrimination.  The total damage award was just shy of $100,000 not including income deductions and interest.

Evidentiary Burden

In this case, the Tribunal remarked that “[t]here is little uncontested or objectively verifiable evidence available to guide me in making findings of fact.” (para 123)

This is often the case with human rights matters.  There is usually no direct evidence of discrimination; for example, someone expressing a racial slur against a colleague in an email.  Often the applicant and respondent will disagree on the facts and there will not be any witnesses or other direct evidence objectively proving either party’s case.  In such circumstances, the Tribunal is often called upon to decide whether the applicant was subjected to discrimination based on circumstantial evidence or inferences, which can be tricky.

Per the Tribunal in Islam:

Direct evidence of discrimination, such as testimony from a witness to discriminatory conduct, is not necessary to establish a breach of the Code. The applicant may rely on circumstantial evidence, which may include evidence of actions or omissions on the part of the respondent that raise inferences that a Code provision has been breached. The inference drawn need not be inconsistent with any other rational explanation to provide evidence of discrimination. Rather, it must be reasonable and more probable than not, based on all the evidence, and more probable than the explanation offered by the respondent. Evidence must always be sufficiently clear, convincing and cogent to satisfy the “balance of probabilities” test stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53 (“McDougall”). (para 114)

In Islam, the Tribunal also commented on the difference between witness testimony that is credible and reliable.  Credibility goes to whether the witness can be trusted to be telling the truth; whereas reliability goes to whether what the witness is testifying to actually happened.  As the Tribunal member put it, it is the difference between veracity and accuracy. When assessing the credibility and reliability of a witness the Tribunal considers the following factors among others:

  • The internal consistency or inconsistency of evidence;
  • The witness’s ability and/or capacity to apprehend and recollect;
  • The witness’s opportunity and/or inclination to tailor evidence;
  • The witness’s opportunity and/or inclination to embellish evidence;
  • The existence of corroborative and/or confirmatory evidence;
  • The motives of the witnesses and/or their relationship with the parties;
  • The failure to call or produce material evidence.

Islam is an interesting example of a human rights case where the Tribunal reached a finding of discrimination despite conflicting evidence proffered by the parties.


Contact Us



  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by SB

    "I just wanted to let you know how happy I am with the outcome and how very grateful I am for the guidance and support that you and your team provided."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Google user

    "Patrick James is really a great lawyer who is smart and great to deal with. He's been our litigation counsel for over 5 years on several different matters. Patrick recently gave our company great strategic advice that resulted in a big commercial litigation win for our company. He's fierce, tenacious, and really cares about getting the best outcome for his clients."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Google user

    "Patrick is a very good lawyer. He recently successfully defended a lawsuit against my company and has pursued several litigation claims for us in the past. All claims settled input favour. Mr. James is smart and quickly gives you great strategic advice. Patrick has been a real asset to our business."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Sandra L.

    "Andrew Wray and Patrick James recently helped settle a difficult situation for me and my family. The results were exactly what we were hoping for. They are honest, strategic and will provide you with the best advice for you and your financial situation. I highly recommend them to everyone I know."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Mark C.

    "Their team is highly focused and incredibly professional - from our experience it would be difficult not to believe that Pinto Wray James are one of Ontario's leading Firms in Labor and Employment law. The mindful client care and complete understanding of the case eased fears and the stress that comes with any legal dispute. Expect to find high level smartly crafted legal solutions at Pinto Wray James LLP - couldn't recommend more."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Sherry C.

    "Patrick is knowledgeable, strategic, supportive, and patient. His guidance and advice helped me to maintain focus and to keep things in perspective. His experience and keen perception provides him with an edge that allows him to assess the situation, the people involved, and to offer a strategic resolution that works best for all involved. If you ever require legal advice and assistance, I highly recommend him and his team. They will be there 100% for you."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Christian V.

    "Patrick is a fearless advocate for diverse clients. His strategic approach, and his empathy, are what set him apart as a litigator, and champion of the underdog."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by A Google User

    "I have no hesitation recommending Andrew Wray of Pinto Wray James LLP. He provided me with legal advice regarding an employment law issue and his council was practical and honest. Andrew's approach is very much one of blending legal excellence with good common sense. An excellent lawyer!"
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Larry S.

    "Patrick listens to his clients and shows compassion, empathy and professionalism. He cares deeply that the individual that has been wrongfully terminated gets the best judgment available to him. I would not hesitate in recommending him to friends or family."