A lawyer for Double Diamond Acres Ltd., the company involved in a Human Rights Tribunal case won by a migrant worker says he believes an error was made by the hearing officer that cannot be appealed.
Tribunal documents show that racial slurs were directed at Adrian Monrose, and when he stood up to his employer he was sent home to St. Lucia.
Now Double Diamond is on the hook for $23,500 in damages.
But the company's lawyer says the bigger issue is the damage done to the company's reputation that cannot be appealed because of provincial laws.
The decision in Monrose v. Double Diamond Acres Ltd. hits the Kingsville greenhouse operator in more ways than one.
James Ball says "The issue is not about money, the issue is about error - and the lack of a means to correct the error that we believe was made by the hearing officer."
Ball, an attorney at Sutts Strosberg, represented Double Diamond in the human rights tribunal case where former migrant worker Adrian Monrose claimed he was called a "monkey on a branch," received a death threat, and was fired by his supervisor, Jeffrey Carrerio, and owner Benji Mastronardi.
The tribunal agreed with Monrose's claim of discrimination and wrongful termination.
But Ball says it's a he-said, she-said case that went in Monrose's favour, "The respondent’s reputation has been trashed on the strength of one person's say-so with absolutely no corroborating evidence."
Ball says his clients disagree with the ruling, but have no way of clearing their names because there's no process to appeal the Human Rights Tribunal's decision.
Representatives with the provincial Attorney General's office say anyone can apply for reconsideration - but must meet specific criteria - that Double Diamond’s lawyer says it can't meet.
The code was amended in 2006 to remove the right to appeal, which according to Ministry of the Attorney General representatives "Provided the tribunal with the authority to reconsider its own decisions."
It also says "This process would save individuals from having to embark on lengthy court processes, while ensuring that experts in human rights matters continue to make decisions on a claim."
Ball believes people can't appeal because there is no transcription or official recordings of the tribunal proceedings.
"It's a legislative decision, but I think it's fairly clear that the government wasn’t prepared to spend the money to, in effect, put together that type of judicial infrastructure."
For that reason he says the Human Tights Tribunal process is flawed and needs government revision.
"If the province truly is committed to the vindication of human rights, then they ought to make provision for appeal."
Ball also makes the point that people with valid human rights complaints may lose their claim, but also have no way of appealing a decision.
And he says that's not justice at work.
