A Guyanese in Canada was earlier this month ordered by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal to pay a former co-worker CD$2,000 after being found guilty of continuous provocation which saw him calling his colleague ‘bati boy,’ among other things, and making offensive reference to the man’s wife.
Guyanese Satesh Shiwkaran was ordered along with Tipco Inc, the company he worked for, to pay the sum of money to Abbass Shroff on September 4 by David Muir, the vice-chairman of the human rights tribunal.
Shroff had filed his application in September of last year in which he had alleged that he experienced discrimination in employment on the basis of his ancestry, creed, disability, ethnic origin, marital status, place of origin and sex.
Most of the applicant’s complaints were dismissed but it was found that he was provoked on many occasions by Shiwkaran, who was his supervisor.
The man alleged that he and wife were having problems having a child and because of this Shikwkaran begun referring to him as a ‘bati boy,’ and when asked what he meant he told Shroff that he did not know how to have sex with his wife and even offered to sleep with the man’s wife on many occasions.
The applicant claimed that he was forced out of the workplace by a poisoned work environment created as a consequence of Shiwkaran’s treatment of him, but while Muir found that his Code rights had been violated by the Guyanese the conduct had not created a poisoned work environment.
The adjudicator, a copy of whose ruling has been seen by this newspaper, said that the applicant’s case was rife with difficulties as he made allegations that simply could no be correct and were often exaggerated.
On the other hand the evidence given by the Guyanese was at least as “unreliable as that of Mr Shroff. Mr Shiwkaran simply denied everything and in respect of several important points was contradicted by other current employees…”
“I do not accept Mr Shiwkaran’s evidence on the main points at issue,” Muir said. He further said that unless corroborated by other evidence, he was by and large unable to accept the evidence of either man.
However, despite the shortcomings of the applicant’s evidence, Muir said that there was sufficient evidence to support his contention that he was subject to a course of vexations conduct by the Guyanese man who ought to have known it would be unwelcome.
“I find that Mr Shiwkaran referred to Mr Shroff as ‘bati boy’, a pejorative term that was reasonably interpreted by Mr Shroff as being a reference to his inability to conceive a child and more generally a derogatory attack on Mr Shroff’s manhood,” Muir said.
The adjudicator also found that the Guyanese made unwanted and offensive reference to the man’s wife.
A Guyanese colleague of Shiwkarran had testified that that the term ‘bati boy’ refers to gay men and that he (Shiwkarran) would have known the meaning because he is Guyanese.
But Muir also found that the abusive treatment was not a daily or even a routine occurrence as claimed by the applicant, and as such his decision to leave the company was not justified by the harassment that he did experience.
He said the evidence fell far short of establishing a poisoned work environment, as while there was conflict between the two men, a significant element of it was as a result of the applicant’s perception that he was being treated unfairly by the employer.
And while the applicant held the Guyanese responsible for him having lost his job, the adjudicator found that the impugned behaviour of the Guyanese was not a significant factor in the applicant’s decision to leave his workplace on November 7, 2005.
But he said there was a basis for an award of special damages and ordered that the CD$2000 be paid jointly or severally by the Guyanese and his former employer.
