Good afternoon, honourable justices of the court as previously stated by my co-council Djuknic,
first initial T, my name is Patel, first initial D, representing the respondent, the British Columbia
Human Rights Tribunal. As my co-counsel has introduced, the respondent will be submitting the
policy implications of allowing the appeal set forth today thereby failing to recognize the true
purpose of section 13(1)(b).
The respondent submits that it is not enough for Mr. Schrenk’s employer to be held accountable
for this unacceptable behaviour. If this court were to allow the appeal of holding Mr. Schrenk ,
then the tribunal will not be fulfilling and living up to its true purpose, which is providing a remedy
or a solution to human rights complaints.
The legislative history points us towards an expansive approach, and the purpose of a Tribunal is
to help victims that had their human rights violated. In this case, Mr. Mashgoul was discriminated
against, so it’s up to the tribunal to offer a remedy to Mr. Mashgoul. By taking a narrow approach
like that suggested by the dissent at the Supreme Court, the court is letting the perpetrator of the
hook and leaving the complainant without a remedy.
The employer did all it could in its power to help both sides; they gave warnings to Schrenk, held
meetings, and removed Schrenk from projects, however the discrimination continued. Mashgoul
received enough psychological abuse that he had to bring a lawsuit against Schrenk. It is the
respondent position to respectfully disagree with this claim. Employers should not be held in
charge and liable for cleaning up after their employees. This is not daycare; we are talking about
mature adults that are working for a construction company.
If this court were to rule in favour of the appellant, then this means that our legal system is failing
to protect minorities across the country. Schrenk is disputing that Mashgoul cannot file this
discrimination because there is no hierarchical relationship, and if this reason for the motion to
dismiss was allowed then it creates a precedent that would allow this type of unacceptable
behaviour to continue. This judicial decision will have an unintended domino effect. First, this will
signal employees that they are able to discriminate against their co-workers without having any
repercussions. Then, victims of discrimination will have nowhere to go since they need to pay their
bills and will receive no remedy because the judicial system deemed that it’s acceptable to conduct
this activity, so employers will not intervene, and co-workers will continue this behaviour.
Eventually, co-workers will get tired of this discrimination that they will either quit their job which
leaves employers with less employees to complete their work. It also brings the potential of
bringing illnesses and suicide upon employees.
Canada is known for having the kindest and caring people in the world. Canadians should help
each other and should not take advantage of others. With the level of diversity in Canada, we
understand the struggles that immigrants go through and the difference of opinions or beliefs that
are present. Canada depends on immigration so if we create a reputation that discriminating your
co-workers is accepted then Canada is going to fall apart. This means that less immigrants will
come which means higher tax being charged on individuals residing in Canada. There is a powerful
impact of just this one decision.
Honourable justices of the court, the respondent would like the justices to think about the duty that
they have to the country not only as a justice but as a citizen. COVID-19 created polarization of
ideas within Canada regarding politics and health. The respondent submits that the honourable
justices think about how our previous justices wanted their successors to take the expansive
approach to understand the context of the phrase “regarding employment” and the overall impact
on Canadian societies.
Barring any further questions, the respondent concludes their submissions and reminds the court
that the appeal must be denied.
Isn’t going to the employer enough?
It worked that sm kenw where to go and the perp was removed effectively but that’s assuming if
they are able to.
If employer wasn’t responsive,
What about private email?