|
Racism - Administrative. Adegoke v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Adegoke v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2025) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed a JR, this brought against "a decision of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada" dismissing an "appeal from a decision of the Tribunal’s General Division in which it found that he had left his job voluntarily without just cause and was therefore not entitled to employment insurance benefits".
The court considered an allegation of a tribunal's racism, here where the JR applicant was black and all panel members were white:[14] Mr. Adegoke alleges that "“as a Black individual, [...] racial bias influenced the [T]ribunal’s decision-making process. The tribunal was composed entirely of white members, raising concerns of racial bias, mainly when decisions appear to be made without considering the applicant’s unique circumstances.”" He now also alleges a reasonable apprehension of bias.
[15] As this Court has recognized, "“an allegation of bias, especially actual and not simply apprehended bias, against a tribunal is a serious allegation. […] It cannot be done lightly. It cannot rest on mere suspicion, pure conjecture, insinuations or mere impressions of an applicant or his counsel”": Arthur v. Canada (Attorney General), 2001 FCA 223. Mr. Adegoke does not come close to meeting the evidentiary threshold to establish apprehended bias, let alone actual bias. . Barnwell v. Law Society of Ontario [racism/mitigation]
In Barnwell v. Law Society of Ontario (Div Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed an LSO JR, here against Appeal and Hearing Panel decisions of the Law Society Tribunal that "found that the appellant engaged in professional misconduct and concluded that nothing less than revocation or permission to resign would prevent the appellant from committing similar misconduct, deciding on the latter".
The court considers racism in an administrative context, here as a mitigating factor in professional discipline:[77] The Appeal Panel directly addressed the submission that the Hearing Division wrongly required a causal connection between the existence of anti-Black racism in Canada and the circumstances of the appellant in considering the mitigating effect. They addressed R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, 159 O.R. (3d) 641 (C.A.), a criminal decision holding that systemic racism against those in the Black community cannot diminish the seriousness of the offence as a consideration in sentencing but can offer an explanation for the commission of the offence. Causation is not required.
[78] For example, in Morris the Court of Appeal found, at para. 100, that it “was open to the trial judge to find that the evidence of anti-Black racism was connected to, or played a role in, Mr. Morris’s strong fear for his personal safety in the community. That state of mind offered a mitigating explanation for Mr. Morris’s possession of the loaded, concealed handgun. … the offender offers an explanation for possessing a loaded gun, which, to some extent, ameliorates the offender’s moral responsibility for that choice”.
[79] As held by the Appeal Panel, at para. 119:... there must be some connection between the systemic racism and the circumstances or events that are said to explain or mitigate the misconduct at issue. But the licensee does not need to show a direct causal link. [80] The Appeal Division went on to acknowledge that it could be a fine line between requiring a connection and improperly requiring a causal link. The Appeal Panel expressed a concern that the Hearing Panel’s analysis of Dr. Walker’s evidence verged on a causal analysis, which was not permitted. However, on a review of the findings of the Hearing Panel, the Appeal Panel was not persuaded that the Hearing Panel’s approach to Dr. Walker’s evidence made a difference given the factors that were considered, resulting in some mitigating effect.
|
