British Columbia's police watchdog must pay a M茅tis woman $51,900.48 after she successfully pursued a human rights complaint against it on the basis she was discriminated against because of her race and sex in the area of employment.
The complainant, identified only as DS, applied for a job as an investigator with the Independent Investigation Office of British Columbia (IIO) in the Spring of 2018. She was offered the position, subject to her successfully completing an 鈥渆nhanced security screening process,鈥� which she underwent with no concerns identified.
But during the screening, British Columbia Human Rights tribunal member Shannon Beckett noted , DS raised concerns about the "storage, retention, and destruction of her personal information which had been collected in relation to a mandatory polygraph examination.
"She also raised concerns about the polygraph examiner, and about the IIO contacting her current employer," Beckett noted in her 92-page decision. "The IIO says that based on the way DS raised these concerns and interacted with various members of its team, it decided to withdraw its offer of employment to her."
The IIO has operated out of Bing Thom's Central City tower in Whalley since Sept. 10, 2012 and reports to B.C.'s attorney general. It's a civilian organization, investigating on and off-duty police-related incidents involving death and serious harm.
The IIO denies discriminating against DS, who claimed the person who administered the polygraph examination was "aggressive and rude to her" and "made remarks to her which were racist and sexist, and which demonstrated his stereotypical views of Indigenous women." For its part, the IIO argued its goal is to maintain public confidence in law enforcement, and to achieve this its investigators must have "excellent interpersonal communication skills" as well as be "tactful and diplomatic."
It claimed the manner in which DS conducted herself during her screening "demonstrated she lacked these key qualities and would not be a 'good fit'" for its team, Beckett noted, and that it was DS herself who was "aggressive and rude."
The tribunal hearing ran for five days and heard from six witnesses, with Beckett ultimately finding in the complainant's favour. "While DS's communications were strongly worded and cause the IIO concern, the evidence gives rise to a reasonable inference that the IIO viewed DS's conduct through the lens of stereotype, and it relied on its view of DS in deciding to rescind the offer."
"With respect to publication of her name, DS argues that she does not feel safe being identified as an Indigenous woman who has complained against a police oversight body which employs many ex-police officers," Beckett added.
The tribunal heard that then-chief civilian director Ron MacDonald sent DS a letter rescinding the IIO's offer of employment that read, in part, that during the screening process "you have questioned our integrity and alleged that the IIO has breached undertakings, failed to comply with policies, and misled you. Among other matters you have registered your disappointment and dismay about senior IIO officials and claimed the IIO is unprofessional."
MacDonald added her interactions with IIO support staff "have been seen as rude and demanding," that "this is well below the standard required of an investigator or any person at the IIO" and "the fact that these concerning communications are occurring before you have even commenced working at the IIO only serves to make the situation worse."
Roughly one month later, DS filed her complaint with the tribunal.
"On the totality of the evidence before me, I conclude that DS's race and sex were at least a factor in the IIO's decision to rescind the job offer," Beckett decided.
She ordered the IIO to pay the complainant $36,812.48 representing "the wages she would have earned but for the IIO's discriminatory conduct," another $88 in expenses, and to pay her $15,000 "as compensation for injury to her dignity, feelings and self-respect."
