Intersectionality

Intersectionality is a term used to determine the interrelationship between a number of intersecting grounds of discrimination.

In Radek v Henderson Development (Canada) Ltd. and Securiguard Services Ltd. (No. 3), the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal emphasized the importance of intersecting or compounding grounds of discrimination. The Tribunal noted that in Baylis-Flannery v. DeWilde (No. 2) (2003), the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (as it was then) pronounced, “An intersectional analysis of discrimination is a fact-drive exercise that assesses the disparate relevancy and impact of the possibility of compound discrimination.”

In Radek, the Tribunal considered the application of Baylis on account of the grounds alleged including race, colour, ancestry and disability. The Tribunal considered the primary focus to be race, colour and ancestry; however, determined the analysis of those grounds cannot ignore the Complainant’s disability and the possibility that compound discrimination may have occurred.

In Baylis, the Applicant’s race and sex were both factors as a black woman who was sexually assaulted. The Tribunal stated that an awareness of the effect of compound discrimination is necessary in order to avoid “reliance on a single axis analysis where multiple grounds of discrimination are found, [which] tends to minimize or even obliterate the impact of racial discrimination on women of colour who have been discriminated against on other grounds, rather than recognize the possibility of the compound discrimination that may have occurred.”

The concept of intersectionality has been discussed in a number of cases, including Morrison v. Motsewetsho (2003) and Comeau v. Cote (2003).

In Turner v. Canada (Attorney General), the Federal Court of Appeal considered intersectionality which was raised by the Appellant who alleged discrimination based on race and a perceived disability on the basis of weight. The Federal Court explained that the concept of intersecting grounds “at a basic level, holds that when multiple grounds of discrimination are present, their combined effect may be more than the sum of their individual effects. The concept of intersecting grounds also holds that analytically separating these multiple grounds minimizes what is, in fact, compound discrimination. When analyzed separately, each ground may not justify individually a finding of discrimination, but when the grounds are considered together, another picture may emerge.”

In other words, the interrelation of various grounds can compound discrimination making the impact of the intersection of grounds worsen and; further, when considered together may impact the finding.