Bombardier did not racially discriminate against pilot, Supreme Court rules

Canadian pilot denied training by Montreal-based Bombardier in the wake of Sept. 11 attacks

By Louise Elliott, CBC News Posted: Jul 23, 2015 8:13 AM ET Last Updated: Jul 23, 2015 10:19 AM ET

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Bombardier Inc. did not discriminate against a Canadian pilot on the basis of his race.

In its unanimous decision, the court found the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal did not establish there was a connection between the race of Javed Latif and Bombardier's decision to deny him training.

The decision is expected to have ramifications for hundreds of other cases of alleged racial and other forms of discrimination in Canada.

Latif was licensed to fly in both Canada and the United States, but needed to retrain in order to fly new aircraft.

In 2004, Bombardier's pilot training centre in Dallas refused to retrain him, saying U.S. authorities had identified him as a "threat to aviation or national security."

Latif said the U.S. authorities had made a mistake. He reapplied to be trained under his Canadian licence by Bombardier in Quebec, but the company refused, again citing U.S. national security concerns.

In 2008, Latif was taken off the threat list by U.S. authorities, without explanation. After his case was re-examined, he was later able to train with Bombardier.

'Branded a terrorist'

Catherine McKenzie, Latif's lawyer, indicated the impact on her client of Bombardier's decision not to train him.

"He said in testimony that he felt he was branded as a terrorist erroneously," she told CBC News before the top court decision was handed down. "He wasn't able to work as a pilot for four years."

Latif took the case to Quebec's Human Rights Tribunal. Bombardier argued before the tribunal that there "would have been serious consequences" for Bombardier with the U.S. authorities if they had agreed to train him in Canada.

The tribunal nevertheless found in Latif's favour, saying he had been discriminated against based on national and ethnic origin. It awarded him an unprecedented $320,000 in damages.

That decision was overturned by the Quebec Court of Appeal. Thursday's ruling upholds that decision.

サラッと読んだ時はそうよねー何て思っただけど、よーく考えるとコレっておかしくないかしらって思ったのよ。

ただ、相手がボンバルディエなので、この場合は無罪でも仕方無いかもしれないのかな。ボンバルディエも、相手が誰であっても平等に会社としての義務を果たしただけな訳だから。そんなリストに名前が載っている人に授業を講習させる事が出来ないのは当たり前と言えば当た前。個人的にその人の事を熟知している訳でもないし。

でも、腑に落ちないのは、この人の、Due Processが守られていないから？

国の安全が絡んだら、Innocent until proven guiltyじゃ無いの？

大体、何故そんなリストに名前が載せられていて、それに対して個人が何も対応出来無い状態で、生きて行く上のプロフェッションを無理やり絶たれた訳でしょ？然も、説明も無くいつの間にか名前がリストから消えていったらしいし。これって、《国の安全》を盾に一人の人権を全く無視した事になると思うんだけど。。。

国の安全は本当に大切だと思うんだけど、個人の人権をあからさまに蔑ろにするのはどうかと思うんだけど。。。

これに関連しているっちゃいている感じもするのが、Bill C-51, Anti-Terror Law。UN Human Rights Committeesも、異議を述べているらしいですよね。

個人の人権尊重と国の安全。

Human Rights and Due Process Vs. National Security

最近の日本でもこの手のお話が色々とされ始めているのでは。。。

自分が当事者だったら、絶対に納得出来ない。だからって、国を相手に訴訟を起こせる程の資金なんか無いし。結局、泣き寝入りになるのかしら。。。