B.C. prisoner's complaint of religious discrimination allowed to proceed, while another about Nike shoes dismissed again
B.C..'s Human Rights Tribunal is allowing one inmate's complaint of alleged religious discrimination to proceed, while dismissing another inmate's complaint about not wearing Nike shoes for a second time
Article content
B.C.’s Human Rights Tribunal is allowing one prisoner’s complaint of religious discrimination to proceed, while dismissing another prisoner’s complaint about not wearing Nike shoes for a second time.
In the first complaint, Nathan Khan — who describes himself as being of Fijian and East Indian background, and who is Muslim — alleges religious and racial discrimination while he was jailed at Chilliwack’s Ford Mountain Correctional Centre from September 2019 to July 2020.
According to the complaint, which lists the Ministry of Public Safety as the respondent, Khan said he “was denied a Halal diet, subjected to discriminatory comments from others, including correctional centre staff, denied an article of religious faith, refused the ability to pray five times a day, and subjected to staff frisking his room for food during Ramadan.”
The allegations outlined in Khan’s complaint have not been proven.
Khan said when he first arrived at the jail, he was under the impression a Halal diet was not possible. Several months later, Khan revisited the request for a Halal diet through his lawyer and only in June 2020 did he start to receive Halal meals.
In the spring of 2020, while Khan was observing Ramadan, he alleged his room was “frisked on several occasions to look for illicit food during this time.”
The facility also offers a work program and Khan said it wasn’t until June 2020 that his work schedule was changed to accommodate his daily prayer schedule. Khan’s complaint also lists specific comments he alleges were made by staff, including references to immigrants, jokes about Ramadan, and comments from kitchen staff when Khan asked for Halal options.
The ministry argued that some of the “single comments … don’t rise to the level of discrimination,” and that an internal investigation had been conducted and no discrimination found.
However, tribunal member Robin Dean disagreed and said the comments had to be examined in context as a whole and if proven, “the repeated comments about Mr. Khan’s religion and race (would) amount to discrimination.”
The ministry also denied that guards had refused Khan the use of a kufi, an Islamic head covering used in prayer, only that it had consulted with the branch imam who said that a kufi is “not a required religious object.” Khan said he had been using a towel and later a head covering borrowed from a Sikh inmate, but that both were confiscated for safety reasons, he was told.
In Dean’s decision, issued March 14 and posted online this week, she notes that the ministry had not proven that the matter had been adequately resolved.
“The ministry’s arguments hinge on the allegation that the comments did not occur,” writes Dean. “I have set out above why I am not persuaded that the complaint should be dismissed on the basis of that argument. A hearing is required to determine whether the evidence shows that there was a pattern of discriminatory comments experienced by Mr. Khan.”
A hearing date has not yet been set.
In another decision also issued March 14, inmate Daniel Smith asked the tribunal to reconsider a previous decision to dismiss his complaint of discrimination on the basis of disability.
In Smith’s original complaint, he said he had requested the use of his own shoes — described as Nike Airs — while at the Okanagan Correctional Centre in 2019 due to foot pain. However, the tribunal found that he could not “establish that he suffered an adverse impact when he was denied the use of his own shoes.”
His original complaint also includes a note from a foot clinic, though the tribunal did not accept this in support of his complaint as it was written a year after his incarceration.
In the application for reconsideration, Smith notes that he once again suffered foot pain while he was again imprisoned in January 2024.
The decision, written by tribunal member Edward Takayanagi, notes that Smith had not adequately proven that reopening the complaint was in the interest of fairness and justice.
“Reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue issues that have already been determined in the original decision,” wrote Takayanagi.
“It appears that Mr. Smith disagrees with the original decision and argues that the foot clinic note brings his allegation of adverse effect out of the realm of conjecture. The issue has already been considered and decided. It would not be in the interests of justice and fairness to interfere with that decision simply because Mr. Smith disagrees with the decision.”
Bookmark our website and support our journalism: Don’t miss the news you need to know — add VancouverSun.com and TheProvince.com to your bookmarks and sign up for our newsletters here.
You can also support our journalism by becoming a digital subscriber: For just $14 a month, you can get unlimited access to The Vancouver Sun, The Province, National Post and 13 other Canadian news sites. Support us by subscribing today: The Vancouver Sun | The Province.
Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion. Please keep comments relevant and respectful. Comments may take up to an hour to appear on the site. You will receive an email if there is a reply to your comment, an update to a thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.