COMPLAINT RESOLUTION

PRE-COMPLAINT
As the first point of contact, the Commission’s Intake Consultants are well-placed to make a timely resolution that may not require a complaint to be formalized. In these situations, Commission Intake Consultants have the authority to see if a “pre-complaint” resolution is possible.

Quick resolution for service animal complaint
This past fiscal year, one of our Intake Consultants received a complaint from David*, who had visited a local restaurant with his service animal. When David arrived at the restaurant, the two servers working that night immediately hurried to the kitchen. They returned with the chef, who informed David he could not bring a dog into the restaurant. David told the chef that the dog was a registered service animal and, as such, was allowed in any public place. David then offered to show the chef his CNIB card as well as his service dog’s registration. The offer was declined. David insisted and told the chef that if he and his service dog were refused entry, he would have no choice but to contact the relevant authorities.

The chef still denied them entry. David left and later filed a human rights complaint. He felt as though he had been discriminated against on the basis of disability. The Intake Consultant contacted David, who was open to a pre-complaint resolution. The restaurant manager was then contacted and a resolution was reached.

The manager apologized for the actions of his staff, gave David a gift card, and extended an invitation to return to the establishment. David accepted and the complaint was closed.

MEDIATION
Mediation is available to Complainants and Respondents who want to settle the complaint at the start of the complaint process, before an Investigation has been done, or at any time during Investigation. A conciliatory approach is used to help the parties understand each other’s perspective more fully. This approach often enables parties to deal more effectively in responding to the concerns of the other party and provides direct input and more control in terms of how the matter is resolved.

Discrimination in housing
Michael* lives with his mother in a housing complex. He suffers from severe anxiety. Michael’s doctor recommended that he get an emotional support animal for his anxiety.

Michael’s mother submitted an emotional support animal application to the housing complex on his behalf. The application was denied. The manager of the complex cited their “no pet” policy, saying that only service animals would be accommodated. Believing he’d been discriminated against on the basis of disability, Michael filed a human rights complaint with the Commission.

Emotional support animals have been recognized to alleviate symptoms of certain mental health disorders. Court decisions have found that landlords and condominium associations have a duty to accommodate an emotional support animal where medical evidence establishes that the resident requires the animal to alleviate symptoms of a mental disorder.

The Commission accepts and investigates complaints in housing where a Complainant provides sufficient medical evidence to establish that an emotional support animal is required. If a person establishes a requirement for an emotional support animal, a “no pets” policy in rental or condominium housing does not apply. People with certain mental disorders rely on support animals for everyday living and require accommodation in housing.

Michael’s complaint was formalized by the Commission and the case was resolved in Mediation.

The manager of the housing complex agreed to accommodate Michael by allowing him to keep the emotional support animal in his housing unit. In turn, Michael agreed to check with the doctor if any behavioural or obedience training was recommended for the emotional support animal and, if so, to commence the training within 60 days. Michael also agreed to keep the emotional support animal up to date with its registration and vaccines while abiding by the general guidelines for the upkeep and care of the animal.

Discrimination complaint based on race, ancestry, and sex
Caitlin* is an Indigenous person who was employed by an organization for nearly four years. One day, Caitlin witnessed an Indigenous client being mistreated by a coworker. She brought an internal complaint forward to the head of the organization. She also raised concerns about the organization’s attitude towards and treatment of Indigenous women.

Caitlin alleged that, after voicing her concerns, she was subjected to harassment and negative comments from her boss. She claimed that, during a meeting with her boss, she was admonished for speaking up and was called “thin-skinned.” She also alleged her boss made negative comments in reference to Indigenous people.

The following day, Caitlin received an email from her boss saying that she was missing out on opportunities and making life difficult for herself and others around her. Caitlin’s boss also told her that he had been advised by the Board to be careful around her.

Caitlin’s health was compromised by her interactions at work and, because of that, her doctor recommended she take a short medical leave of absence to regain her health.

During her leave, Caitlin was called into a meeting with her boss and Human Resources. Her boss told her he felt his comments were necessary, and in Caitlin’s best interest, and that he would not change his response if given the opportunity.

Caitlin resigned and filed a complaint with the Commission. She felt she had been discriminated against on the basis of race, ancestry, and/or sex.

The complaint was resolved in Mediation. The organization offered to compensate Caitlin for damages to dignity and provided money for ongoing counseling fees. The organization also provided Caitlin with a letter of apology and ensured that new employees would receive a copy of their workplace harassment policy.

Caitlin accepted the offer and the file was closed.

INVESTIGATION
In an Investigation, an impartial investigator talks to witnesses and examines records to find out what happened. The investigator then refers the case to the Chief Commissioner who decides whether the case should be mediated, dismissed, sent to a hearing, or dealt with in another way.

Discrimination based on disability
Jacob* is a person with a disability. He suffers from PTSD, depression, and other mental health disorders. He recently moved to Saskatchewan for work. Not long after starting his new position, Jacob alleged his supervisor – who knew about his disability and understood the circumstances surrounding his condition – began harassing him. Jacob claimed this harassment exacerbated his disability.

Feeling overwhelmed, Jacob provided his supervisor with a doctor’s note that requested he work from home for two weeks. The request was approved.

Jacob reported his experiences of workplace harassment to his employer and requested an investigation. He also sent his employer an email indicating that he intended to file a complaint with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission.

There were no attempts to investigate the harassment complaint.

Four days later, the employer requested that Jacob attend a meeting with board members and the supervisor he alleged harassed him. Jacob declined, stating he didn’t feel comfortable meeting with the person against whom he had lodged the harassment complaint.

He provided his employer with another doctor’s note recommending a continuation of the previous accommodation. The employer refused to approve the medical extension and terminated Jacob’s employment the same day.

Jacob filed a complaint with the Commission alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by failing to accommodate him to the point of undue hardship. He also had reason to believe his employment had been terminated in retaliation for voicing his intention to file a human rights complaint.

Section 53 of The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code prohibits retaliation against anyone bringing a complaint forward or anyone who provides information related to human rights complaints.

The complaint was formalized by the Commission. Despite best efforts, the parties were unable to conclude the matter at Mediation and the file was moved into Investigation, where the parties reached a resolution.

The employer offered to compensate Jacob for damages to dignity and to pay his moving expenses. Jacob accepted the offer and the file was closed.

Discrimination based on race
Wayne* was hired by a local business as a general labourer. Shortly after he started his new job, Wayne began to experience microaggressions from his supervisor.

According to Wayne, who is of African descent, his supervisor continued to harass and belittle him. Wayne alleged he was denied specialized training that was, instead, provided to a non-racialized coworker. He also alleged his supervisor yelled a profane word at him. Wayne reported the incident to his manager, but nothing was done.

A few days later, an incident occurred where a pallet was stacked incorrectly by one of Wayne’s coworkers.

The supervisor accused Wayne and the only other racialized employee of not completing the task properly. The supervisor then told Wayne to sign a form indicating he was responsible for not completing the task properly. As the mistake was not made by Wayne, he refused.

An argument ensued and Wayne’s employment was terminated. Wayne filed a complaint with the Commission alleging discrimination in employment based on race.

The matter was resolved in Investigation. The employer offered to compensate Wayne for damage to dignity and lost wages. The employer also provided a letter of regret.

Wayne was satisfied with the offer and the file was closed.

DIRECTED MEDIATION
In most cases before a hearing takes place, the parties will be directed to engage in one further mediation attempt. In Directed Mediation, the respondent is asked to provide a final offer of resolution. If the offer made is reasonable in the determination of the Commission, and if the Complainant does not accept it, the Chief Commissioner will dismiss the complaint. Where a reasonable offer is not made, the matter will proceed to hearing, as directed by the Chief Commissioner

Pregnancy case resolved in directed mediation
Olivia* held a permanent, full-time safety position at a local company. In her third year with the organization, Olivia informed her supervisor she was pregnant and would be taking maternity leave.

While on maternity leave, the organization restructured and Olivia was required to apply for one of the newly created permanent positions. She applied for the position that most closely aligned with her former role.

Two months later, Olivia’s supervisor informed her that her application was not successful and that she would have to return to work in a temporary, transitional role with an unknown end date of three to six months. This did not sit well with Olivia. Nor did the fact that the only other member of the original team not to obtain a permanent role in the restructuring was a colleague who was also off on maternity leave.

Both temporary employees who had covered for them while on maternity leave were given permanent positions.

Olivia resigned and filed a human rights complaint. She had reason to believe her employer had discriminated against her on the basis of sex.

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, 2018 prohibits discrimination against people who are pregnant. Pregnancy-related discrimination is a form of discrimination based on the prohibited ground of sex. As such, pregnant employees are protected from discrimination in the workplace. This protection extends to full-time, part-time, temporary, probationary, and contract workers.

Olivia’s complaint was formalized by the Commission and the matter was resolved in Directed Mediation.The employer offered compensation for damage to dignity and Olivia’s supervisor agreed to receive anti-discrimination training. Olivia accepted the terms of the settlement and the case was closed.

*Names have been changed