The Commission is made up of a diverse group of people, many of whom have lived experiences of the very kinds of discrimination that the Canadian Human Rights Act exists to protect. We are dedicated individuals who care deeply about uncovering and eliminating discrimination and racism in all its forms.
We have developed a comprehensive Anti-Racism Action Plan, informed by recommendations and input from employees, unions, stakeholders, and external experts. Every Commission executive is accountable for implementing this Plan, which is assessed in their yearly performance evaluations.
The following content section is presented with tabs. Use the left or right arrows to select a tab. Press the Tab key to access the content of that tab. To return to tabbed navigation, press Shift + Tab.
The Commission is committed to effecting and influencing systemic anti-racist change as an employer, a regulator, and as Canada's national human rights institution. Here is a timeline of our actions to date. This work remains ongoing and is a permanent facet of our organization.
The Commission is responsible for mediating, settling and litigating key human rights cases with the aim to correct systemic forms of racism in Canada. It only takes one individual, one case to help create positive change for so many others. While the Commission is entirely separate from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, we often participate in Tribunal hearings and represent the public interest in cases that stand to impact the human rights of many people in Canada. Here are examples of human rights cases, in which we have participated, to help combat systemic racism.
This settlement is the result of a complaint filed by a Black woman who worked for CSIS as an Intelligence Officer. The Commission referred the complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”). CSIS, the Complainant and the Commission settled the matter without a Tribunal hearing. Although the parties do not necessarily agree on all of the matters raised in the complaint, they have agreed to the public interest remedies described in this statement.
In this settlement, CSIS re-affirms its commitment to:
Read our statement on the settlement with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service
In 2023, the Canadian Human Rights Commission reached a settlement with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). The RCMP agreed to implement a variety of equity, diversity and inclusion measures aimed at identifying and combatting possible obstacles to the successful recruitment and retention of racialized applicants and cadets at the RCMP Training Academy at Depot Division, in Regina. The case began with a complaint to the Commission from an RCMP cadet, who identified as a Black Canadian, and who attended the RCMP Training Academy.
Thanks to his courage, changes are being made right now to address any barriers that underrepresented groups may face when trying to successfully complete their training curriculum at the RCMP Training Academy.
The RCMP has committed to identifying and reducing workplace barriers and discrimination by taking steps to improve the experience of racialized employees at the RCMP, in particular at the RCMP Training Academy. The RCMP has also committed to taking proactive steps — in policy and training — to prevent and address racism, and to increasing the diversity of applicants and cadets at the RCMP Training Academy, as well as across the RCMP, and among those in leadership roles.
In 2023, the National Film Board of Canada (NFB) reached an agreement to settle a human rights complaint before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal about systemic discrimination in the workplace. The complainant, Mr. Stephen Puskas (who agreed to be named), was a young Inuk man who worked at the NFB as an associate producer intern in 2017–2018. He worked on multiple projects, including Hothouse 12 and Ingenia, the NFB's Indigenous Cinema webpage, and helping to promote the NFB and their work in Indigenous communities (ie. the Wide Awake Tour in Labrador and Kuujjuaq.)
Because of his courage and resilience, and with the support of the Center for Research-Action on Race Relations (CRARR), Mr. Puskas helped bring about powerful changes within the NFB, including.
The 2018 Supreme Court decision in Ewert was an important step for the human rights of Indigenous offenders in Canada, who remain over-represented in our federal correctional system. The case centered around the use of risk assessment tests that help determine an inmate's safety risk based on their criminal history, personal characteristics and other various factors. However, there were questions about whether these tools could provide accurate assessments for Indigenous offenders, like Jeffrey Ewert. If not, Indigenous offenders could be misclassified as higher risk than they actually are. That kind of misclassification puts an inmate at a disadvantage in the correctional system.
The Commission appeared as an intervener before the Supreme Court.
In its decision, the Court ruled that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) failed to meet its legal obligations by not confirming the accuracy of the testing tools for Indigenous offenders. The ruling said that CSC must do more to ensure that risk assessment tests do not lead to discrimination and disparity in outcomes for Indigenous offenders.
The Supreme Court's ruling affirmed what has long been pointed out by the Commission, by the Office of the Correctional Investigator, and by prisoners' rights advocates: more work needs to be done to prevent discrimination and meet the unique needs of Indigenous offenders in the criminal justice system.
In 2006, Ms. Davis, a member of the Mohawk Community of Akwesasne, filed a complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of race after she was detained at the border by the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA). The Commission appeared as a party before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which upheld Ms. Davis' complaint in part. The Tribunal found that a CBSA officer made comments that were “unjustified, even aggressive, and defiant” and that his behaviour was “marked by racist stereotyping” towards Ms. Davis as a First Nations woman.
The Tribunal affirmed that “racial stereotyping will usually be the result of subtle unconscious beliefs, biases and prejudices.” The Tribunal awarded Ms. Davis $5,000 in compensation and directed the CBSA to develop and implement a policy specifically prohibiting racial discrimination and profiling.
When the CBSA tried to have the Tribunal's decision overturned, the Commission successfully defended the decision in the Federal Court.
In 2007, the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, together with the Assembly of First Nations, filed a human rights complaint against the Government of Canada, on behalf of First Nations children and families. The complainants alleged the federal government discriminated on the basis of race and national or ethnic origin by failing to provide enough funding and other supports to enable the delivery of child and family services, and other services, capable of meeting the real needs of First Nations children on reserve and in the Yukon.
The complaint proceeded before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, where the Canadian Human Rights Commission participated, on behalf of the public interest. The Tribunal hearing took place over 70 days in 2013 and 2014. There were more than 25 witnesses, and over 500 exhibits.
In January of 2016, the Tribunal released its decision upholding the complaint. It ordered the federal government to reform the child and family services program, and to properly implement Jordan's Principle – a child-first principle that makes sure First Nations children can access the products, services and supports they need, when they need them.
Since 2016, the Tribunal has issued more than 20 additional rulings, giving guidance on the proper implementation of its remedies, and awarding financial compensation to thousands of individual victims of the discriminatory practices.
The Commission applauds the Tribunal's decisions as powerful reaffirmations of the human right of all First Nations children to grow up safe, with the love and support of their families.
In 1992, the National Capital Alliance on Race Relations alleged that Health Canada's employment practices discriminated against racialized employees by denying them promotions to senior management positions. At the time, only one of 118 people in senior management was a member of a racialized group. This compared with a 25% representation rate for racialized employees across the whole department.
The Commission participated in the hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which lasted 46 days. Together with the Alliance, we argued that the staffing and promotion practices were denying racialized people employment and advancement opportunities. For example, the hiring and promotion boards were composed disproportionately of white individuals; racialized people were offered less career and development training than white people, and were less often appointed in acting positions with supervisory duties.
The Tribunal issued its decision in 1997, upholding the complaint. It confirmed that systemic discrimination could be an unintentional consequence of employment systems and practices. It confirmed that in this case, the Alliance and the Commission had successfully demonstrated that there were “a number of staffing practices of [Health Canada] that have a disproportionately negative effect on visible minorities in [Health Canada] which the Tribunal finds discriminatory.” Since Health Canada had chosen not to try to explain the significant under-representation of racialized employees in senior management, the Tribunal held that the Alliance and the Commission had proven that Health Canada had discriminatory promotion practices.
While the Alliance case was systemic in nature, a number of individual public servants filed complaints alleging their careers had been negatively affected in similar ways. The Tribunal upheld a number of these, including complaints filed by Dr. Shiv Chopra against Health Canada, and Dr. Chander Grover against the National Research Council. Along with the Alliance case, these rulings helped to establish important principles for identifying and eliminating systemic discrimination in federal workplaces.
Today, Sikh Canadians who join the Royal Canadian Mounted Police don't have to choose between wearing the RCMP uniform and following their religious practices. They can do both. But things were once very different.
When Baltej Singh Dhillon applied to be an RCMP officer in 1988, he was told that the RCMP's uniform policy did not allow him to wear his turban. For Staff Sergeant Dhillon, this meant that if he wanted to join the force, he would have to compromise his religious beliefs.
Staff Sergeant Dhillon's efforts to change the rules sparked a heated debate across Canada. Some felt that Canada's history and traditions were threatened by the country's growing cultural diversity.
In 1990, after consulting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Act, Solicitor General Pierre Cadieux ruled that turbans could be worn by uniformed RCMP officers. He said the decision was “not only the correct one in law but also the right decision.”
When the ruling was challenged three years later, the Canadian Human Rights Commission was there to help defend the RCMP's decision to allow turbans. In the end, the 1990 ruling was upheld, and today, officers can choose to wear their Sikh turban while also proudly wearing their RCMP uniform.
On May 25th, 1984, Mr. Balbir Basi filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging that he, a man of Indian descent, had been denied an employment opportunity with the Canadian National Railway Company (CNR) because of his race, color and national and ethnic origin.
The case eventually went before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The Commission appeared as a party in this matter. At the Tribunal hearing, the CNR attempted to provide alternate explanations for its failure to hire Mr. Basi, but the Tribunal found those explanations inconsistent with the reasons CNR gave for interviewing 5 other candidates.
In its final decision, the Tribunal wrote: “Discrimination is not a practise which one would expect to see displayed overtly. In fact, rarely are there cases where one can show by direct evidence that discrimination is purposely practised.” The Tribunal then famously wrote: “Frankly, the subtle scent of discrimination permeates the entire manner in which the CNR dealt with the Human Rights Commission in attempting to justify their actions regarding Basi. I am left with the conclusion that the rationale for not hiring Mr. Basi, as described by [CNR], was not as innocent, direct nor reasonable as first proposed.”
The idea of the subtle scent of discrimination has since become a widely referenced phrase among human rights lawyers, experts, and anti-racism advocates. It perfectly captures the challenging burden of proof often placed upon those who have experienced racism, and the need for decision-makers to look deeper and beyond direct evidence.
In the end, the Tribunal ruled in Mr. Basi and the Commission's favour — that CNR had not provided a sufficient credible explanation as to why Mr. Basi had not been selected for the job.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission is committed to advancing racial equality in Canada. We do much of this work in close collaboration with civil society organizations and human rights advocates. One example is our Network for Advancing Racial Equality.
This network is national in scope, and includes intersectional and culturally diverse representation. It provides a forum for ongoing dialogue and engagement with the Commission about grassroots experiences of racialized people from stakeholders, advocacy organizations and individuals that have their fingers on the pulse of these communities.
The Commission would be happy to count you as a member of this network. To express your interest in joining this network please register by filling out the form.