A judge from the Court of King’s Bench has directed the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission to review a complaint it had previously dismissed. The complaint was lodged against the Saskatchewan Health Authority (SHA) by a Filipino customer at a Starbucks kiosk in Royal University Hospital, Saskatoon. The customer, who attempted to converse with a Filipino employee in Tagalog, was informed that speaking Tagalog was prohibited and could result in disciplinary action if English was not used. The SHA-operated kiosk has since closed.
Initially, the human rights commission rejected the woman’s complaint without conducting an investigation. However, after the complainant provided additional details and elaborated on her arguments, the commission was prompted to reconsider. The complainant contended that being denied service in Tagalog had a negative impact on her, viewing it as intentional discrimination against the Filipino community.
Subsequently, the complainant sought a judicial review, leading to the recent court ruling. The ruling did not assess the validity of the complaint per se, but rather scrutinized the reasonableness of the commission’s dismissal without proper investigation. The judge concluded that the dismissal was unjustified.
While deliberating the case, the human rights commission deliberated on whether language and culture are inherently intertwined. The commission referenced previous cases where language was viewed merely as a communication tool rather than a cultural identifier. Nevertheless, the judge critiqued the commission for failing to address the complainant’s argument alleging racial discrimination against Filipino employees due to the ban on Tagalog at the kiosk.
Consequently, the court ruled to invalidate the previous decision and send the case back to the commission for reassessment. The Filipino-Canadian Association of Saskatchewan (FILCAS) expressed its support for the complainant, emphasizing the importance of respectful discussions on workplace inclusion and cultural sensitivity.
Health policy analyst Steven Lewis expressed astonishment at the situation, questioning the rationale behind implementing a language policy at a coffee kiosk. He highlighted the lack of necessity for such a policy in a non-patient-facing setting. The SHA maintained its commitment to equitable care but did not directly address the human rights complaint or the kiosk in its statement. Lewis criticized the SHA for not providing further clarification through interviews, suggesting that transparency would be more beneficial in resolving the issue.