Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission determines woman was target of racial profiling

The Canadian Tire store in Dartmouth Crossing is pictured.

The Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission has determined a woman was the target of racial profiling at a Dartmouth, N.S., store in 2021.

The decision was in regard to a Feb. 16, 2022, complaint by Charla Dorrington against A.J. Acheson Sales Ltd., which was the franchise operator of a Canadian Tire store in Dartmouth Crossing.

“That company sold the store in about 2023. The store still exists, carried on by another operator who is not in any way implicated in this case,” reads the decision of the Board of Inquiry.

Eric Slone was appointed as a one-member Board of Inquiry on Oct. 7, 2024, to oversee the hearing which occurred on Oct. 28.

Dorrington, the complainant, was the only witness and represented herself. She “spoke eloquently and poignantly of her experience” and was not cross-examined.

“Nevertheless, I accept her testimony as a faithful account of what happened on December 9, 2021 at approximately 4:45 p.m.,” wrote Slone in his decision.

On the day in question, Dorrington had finished shopping at Mark’s Work Warehouse – which is located inside the Canadian Tire store – had paid for her items and was headed towards the store’s exit accompanied by her daughter and four-year-old grandson.

According to the decision, a young Caucasian man, who was “obviously a store employee” stopped her and said, “I need to see your receipt.”

When Dorrington questioned the employee, she said he continued to press her.

Dorrington showed the receipt and left the store “without this employee even checking her bags against the receipt.”

“What is significant about this exchange was the fact that the customers ahead of the Complainant in the exit line were not stopped at all, and at least one customer behind the Complainant was also not stopped for a receipt check. All of these other customers were Caucasian,” reads the decision.

Dorrington and her family are of mixed Black and Indigenous ancestry.

A customer who was behind her in line spoke out after noticing the exchange.

“(He) remarked that he was sorry this had happened to her, that he couldn’t believe what he was seeing, and he apologized to her ‘on behalf of all white people,’” reads the decision.

Dorrington told the Board of Inquiry she attempted to speak to the store’s management but was “mostly stonewalled,” and she was unable to speak to the owner or get the employee’s name.

She decided to file a Human Rights complaint when she realized she would not have resolution directly with the store.

Dorrington said she felt “humiliated and embarrassed,” particularly because her young grandson had been with her at the time.

“The employee in question was young but apparently behaved in an arrogant and smug manner. Given the differential treatment that he afforded the complainant, and in the absence of any other explanation, I conclude that he harboured a bias, whether conscious or unconscious, against people of colour such that he singled them out for differential treatment,” wrote Slone in the decision.

“This appears to have been a classic example of racial profiling, which is “the practice of targeting a consumer for discriminatory treatment based on the consumer’s race, or ethnicity, or both.”

Alan Acheson, the owner of A.J. Acheson Sales Ltd., was informed of the complaint and hearing but did not participate, according to the decision.

“His participation was minimal or non-existent at various phases. For reasons only known to him, he has acted as if this were a matter that did not deserve any attention,” reads the decision.

“As for the hearing itself, he was informed well in advance of the hearing date and was then sent the Notice of Hearing by various methods. He did not attend.”

It was determined that, because the business is no longer in operation, remedies such as diversity training or education were not applicable in this case.

Instead, Slone ordered that the respondent pay Dorrington $20,000 in general damages.

“I consider it an aggravating factor that the Respondent has flouted this process and has denied the Complainant any opportunity for a constructive resolution of the incident. I am also mindful that an award of general damages is intended to be remedial and not punitive,” said Slone.

The payment is required to be made within 30 days of receipt of written notification of the Board Chair’s approval of this settlement. The order dictates that failure to abide by the agreement will result in the matter being referred to the Supreme Court.

For more Nova Scotia news, visit our dedicated provincial page