Human Rights: No Intent Required

The decision maker need not look for a motivator for the alleged offensive action. There is no need to establish the intent to discriminate. ¹

The intent to discriminate is not the significant issue. The importance lies in the consequence of the conduct, as opposed to the intent. ²

As was the case with the need to prove but a prima facie case and proof by reasonable inference through circumstantial evidence, the origin of this principle came from an interpretation of labour relations issues, in this instance, whether the termination of a person was due to union membership.³

Further, the offensive conduct need not be malicious and further need only be a factor propelling the conduct in question. It need not be the sole cause. It is not an exercise in determining whether the alleged adverse treatment took place because of a code violation but rather was influenced by a code violation.

Intent is required to be shown for a claim of General Reprisal. This is reviewed here.

👤 About the Author •
📚 Human Rights Index •
🎥 YouTube •
⬆️ Back to Top

1. Ontario Divisional Court in Smith v. Mardana Ltd. (No. 2); Cugliari v Telefficiency (Faughan)
2. The Supreme Court of Canada in “O’Malley” OHRC v Simpsons-Sears Limited, a 1985 decision written by Mr. Justice McIntyre.
3. R. v Bushnell Communications