''Seneca College v Bhadauria'', 9812 SCR 181 is a leading decision of the

Supreme Court of Canada The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC; , ) is the highest court in the judicial system of Canada. It comprises nine justices, whose decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law, and grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants eac ...

civil rights Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' political freedom, freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations, and private individuals. They ensure one's entitlement to participate in the civil and ...

and

tort A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with cri ...

law. The Court ruled that there can be no

common law Common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law primarily developed through judicial decisions rather than statutes. Although common law may incorporate certain statutes, it is largely based on prece ...

tort of

discrimination Discrimination is the process of making unfair or prejudicial distinctions between people based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they belong or are perceived to belong, such as race, gender, age, class, religion, or sex ...

Background

Bhadauria, an East Indian woman, was qualified to teach in Ontario and had seven years experience. She had applied ten times to Seneca College but was never granted an interview. Bhadauria claimed that she was not interviewed because of her ethnicity. She argued that the college had violated the common law tort of discrimination. The Court of Appeal for Ontario accepted the existence of such a tort. Since Bhadauria could show that such a right existed and that it had been violated by the practices of the college she would be entitled to remedy.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

The Court allowed the appeal. It held that there was no tort of discrimination in Canadian common law. The court reasoned that a tort of discrimination was unnecessary since Bhadauria already had access to the human rights regime. Furthermore, because the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had not yet come into effect in 1981, Bhadauria could not bring a section 15 equality rights claim. At that time, the only legal avenue available to her was to sue in tort for racial discrimination in hiring, in hopes of achieving a more meaningful remedy. The outcome of the case effectively closed off civil recourse for victims of racism and other forms of discrimination, and it reduced defendants’ potential liability, as human rights tribunals were limited in their remedial powers compared to the courts.

External links

full text of decision at CanLII
Canadian civil rights case law Canadian tort case law Supreme Court of Canada cases 1981 in Canadian case law Seneca College Minority rights Employment discrimination case law Indian diaspora in Canada {{Canada-law-stub