A human rights complaint filed by a veteran North Bay Police officer can proceed, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has ruled.
Const. Christopher Marshall filed the complaint “alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the grounds of gender identity, gender expression and association with a person identified by one of these grounds contrary to the Human Rights Code,” said the transcript from the tribunal hearing.
None of the allegations in the lawsuit have been proven in court.
In April 2017, Marshall sent an email to the staff sergeant that said police bathrooms should be changed “to gender-neutral bathrooms to be inclusive of everyone.”
“I suggested that the washroom be not only inclusive of men and women but of all sexes, including those who are transgendered would (sic) suggest this also be done with the washroom in the front lobby to include everyone and make no one who is waiting out front in the lobby feel unwelcome,” the email said.
“The idea would be cost-effective and also be positive media publicity.”
Marshall, a 13-year veteran of the force, said he began to face discrimination and reprisals not long afterward. Specifically, he alleges that in September 2017 he was denied a chance to work as a traffic officer “for which he was very qualified and had demonstrated considerable interest,” the transcript said.
He said he was also subject to “a chief’s complaint which alleged he had been insubordinate or rebellious in sending the April 2017 email and in sending an email on Sep. 16, 2017, requesting an explanation for not having received the traffic officer position.”
Between September and November that year, he said his work computer was searched and he was placed on administrative leave.
“Following reinstatement in November 2017, he was, and continues to be, subjected to a hostile or poisoned work environment through jokes, comments and unwelcome remarks made by staff and personnel at the service,” the transcript said.
In response, lawyers for the police service argued the complaint should be dismissed because it was filed more than a year after the incidents are said to have occurred.
However, the tribunal ruled that the incidents Marshall reported are said to have begun in April 2017 “and continued until at least April 2019.”
Previous decisions have held that “where there is a sufficient foundation to consider the allegations as a whole to be a series, so long as the last incident in the series is within the one-year limitation period, the entire application is timely.”
In addition, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that human rights legislation “must be given a fair, large, and liberal meaning and read in a purposive manner.”
Read the full transcript here.
