The Repulsive Face of Systemic Racism at the National Research Council of Canada

Dr. Chander Grover, NRC Director is presently being harassed and has been locked out of his office

Dr. Grover, as will be described below, is engaged in litigation with his employer, National Research Council (NRC). NRC asserts that Dr. Grover "has neither been subjected to harassment nor locked out of his office...." However, on the issue of harassment, a recent media article reported that "A federal employee who has been the victim of racial discrimination says he is once again being mistreated by his employers." It went on to state that "It is the latest in a 17-year battle between the East Indian research scientist and his bosses at the council, which saw the Crown agency denounced for 'flagrant and calculated' discrimination by a Human Rights Tribunal in 1992." On the issue of being locked out of his office the article states "Chander Grover, 62, has been locked out of his office since early June... from his job as a director at the National Research Council in a 'no work, no pay' action taken by his employers." It went on to state that "Dr. Grover said the lockout is another tactic in the council's strategy to get him to resign for good." See, "Discrimination victim says the NRC is trying to force him to quit - Suspended over refusal to see council's chosen physician" Ottawa Citizen, September 16, 2004.

Dr. Grover Superiors at NRC are still subjecting Him to Adverse Differential Treatment

It is a matter of public record that Dr. Grover is currently off work on a "no work, no pay" situation. He is not on sick leave nor is he on disability. His employer has issued him a Record of Employment that states he is on a leave of absence without pay indefinitely. Dr. Grover is willing, able and prepared to return to work immediately. He has submitted a medical fitness certificate issued by a "qualified medical practitioner" as per the requirement of the Canada Labour Code, Part II, and the NRC Occupational Safety and Health Policy. The medical certificate certified that Dr. Grover was fit to return to full-time duties as of July 05, 2004. The NRC has refused to indicate why this medical certificate is not acceptable. Dr. Grover has reported for work on more than one occassion but was forced to leave the NRC premises by his superior using threats of disciplinary action. Dr. Grover supervised a section with a staff of over 50 people. He was instructed not to communicate with his staff using threats of disciplinary action if he failed to comply with these instructions. Dr. Grover is aware some of his staff has been given instructions that they are not to communicate with him. NRC has never provided Dr. Grover with a plausible and/or rational explanation for the treatment to which he is currently subjected. NRC has advised Dr. Grover that the only applicable policy to his situation is Section 6.13.2(b) of NRC Occupational Safety and Health Policy. NRC Occupational Safety and Health Policy, Chapter 6: Occupational Safety and Health, Section 6.13.2(b): Occupational Health Monitoring Policy provides that "when there is evidence sufficient for management to be concerned over the ability of employees to perform their jobs without creating a safety risk to themselves or others...." NRC has not provided Dr. Grover with any evidence, if at all, it purports to have in its possession to indicate the safety risk that he pose to his heath or that of others.

It is interesting to look at the Tribunal's decision in 1992 and consider it in the context of the present situation that Dr. Grover is experiencing with the NRC.

The View from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal:

“We have found and determined that the general treatment of Dr. Grover by the Respondent, and the effect of same on his personal health and family life have been both demeaning and devastating." (p. 82)
"The Tribunal had an opportunity to observe Dr. Grover testify through several days of this hearing, as did his wife. We have gathered an impression of this Complainant that he is an extremely proud, honest, hard working with very strong family ties and devotion. The treatment by the Respondent of Dr. Grover was, in our opinion, humiliating and demeaning, with serious implications resulting in lack of career development. We, in addition, heard evidence of health problems arising out of the stress of this treatment as well as the stress placed upon his wife and children."(p. 87)
"It is the conclusion of this Tribunal that an appropriate award for the hurt feelings, humiliation, embarrassment and loss of self-respect by Dr. Grover would indeed be at the high end of the monetary scale under this section."(p. 88)

The View from the Canadian Human Rights Commission:

The Canadian Human Rights Commission anti-discrimination summary created on February 12, 2004 states:

In Dr. Chander Grover’s human rights complaint against the National Research Council (NRC), discussed earlier, the discrimination did not stop when Dr. Grover filed his complaint. In fact, it seemed to get worse. In prescribing a remedy, one of the first things the tribunal ordered the NRC to do was to stop the discrimination against Dr. Grover. To ensure that such discrimination would not happen again, the tribunal ordered the NRC to consult with the Canadian Human Rights Commission for a thorough review of its human rights program and policy.

A formal, written apology was also necessary, said the tribunal, for the “demeaning and devastating?treatment Dr. Grover had suffered. The tribunal hoped this apology, to be published in the NRC’s Sphere magazine, might reassure Dr. Grover and other employees that the kind of treatment he endured would no longer be tolerated in the workplace. The NRC was ordered to apologize to the organizers of a conference who had invited Dr. Grover to present a paper (his managers had cancelled his trip and embarrassed him greatly). The aim of these measures was not to punish those who had discriminated, but to fulfill the purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act to end discrimination and provide relief to its victims. Without these remedies, as well as a management appointment and financial compensation, the tribunal felt that the goals of the Act would not be realized in this case.

"On the tribunal side, the commission has been quite active. If you were to check in the Human Rights Reporter, you would find that the major race discrimination victories in Canada have been won by the Canadian commission, starting with a case that some of the senators may know of, Chander-Grover vs. National Research Council which, at the time, was a landmark in establishing race discrimination."

The View from the Parliament (House of Commons):

MP Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): HANSARD, Friday May 03, 1996, Parliament of Canada
"God did not tell Public Works to push Anne Rainey off the Peace Tower project because she was a woman, nor did God cause the discrimination against Chander Grover at the NRC. Government officials did and they gave financial backing to the perpetrators of this inequality."

The Ottawa Sunday Sun, 23 August 1992

Ottawa MP Marlene Catterall who fought on Grover's behalf said she will also urge a federal government review with the aim of prosecuting staff.
"I think it's very important so people know this not something you can get away with in the public service," she said.

Various sectors of the press has reported on NRC's treatment of Dr. Grover as follows:

"Discrimination victim says the NRC is trying to force him to quit - Suspended over refusal to see council's chosen physician" Ottawa Citizen, September 16, 2004

A federal employee who has been the victim of racial discrimination says he is once again being mistreated by his employers....
It is the latest in a 17-year battle between the East Indian research scientist and his bosses at the council, which saw the Crown agency denounced for "flagrant and calculated" discrimination by a Human Rights Tribunal in 1992.
The research scientist has been a bee in the bonnet of his employers since he filed his original complaint of racial discrimination in 1987.
In the years following, his case was heard twice by a human rights tribunal, which condemned the council on both occasions.

The Ottawa Citizen, 25 May 1996 -- Editorial
“No Canadian should have to go through nine years of hell that Chander Grover has endured, simply to assert his legal and constitutional rights to be treated equally."
“But the government wasn’t scrupulous. One of its agencies, the National Research Council, was bloody-minded, vindictive and blatantly discriminatory."

The Ottawa Citizen, 25 March 1994 -- Editorial
“Persistent stupidity thwart justice at NRC" The record is clear. Chander Grover has endured an ordeal inspired by racism at the National Research Council. The NRC, whether maliciously or through stubbornness, but with persistent stupidity denies the scientist justice. It is time for Industry Minister John Manley to see that right is done."
“Nobody can undo the ordeal of racism and obstinacy that Chander Grover has endured at the National Research Council."
“Promotions refused. Facilities denied. Job assessments doctored. He was even fired at one point while the commission’s tribunal was considering the case; after opposition MPs accused the NRC of intimidation, Grover was rehired."

"Black RCMP Officer allege Racism in Denial of Promotions" The Windsor Star. Windsor, Ont.: Jul 26, 1994. pg. D.8
"Lawrence's complaint echos that of physicist Chander Grover, who fought a gruelling seven-year battle against his employer, the National Research Council."
"Two years ago, Grover convinced a human rights tribunal that he was the victim of racial discrimination even though the question of his race had never been raised at his workplace. Because the NRC could not come up with any plausible explanation for its treatment of Grover -- why, for example, it denied him research and travel privileges -- the tribunal agreed the motivation likely was racism."

The Toronto Star, 23 July 1993 ?ditorial
“The National Research Council’s treatment of Chander Grover is a national disgrace." “This is appalling. Grover has gone through enough certainly one of the longest running and most expensive discrimination complaints in Canadian history.
“The NRC and its managers should be ashamed of themselves for their racist conduct and continuing obstruction in the case of Chander Grover.

The Gazette, Montreal, 31 August 1992, The Page Two Column
“Excerpts from the tribunal’s 94-page report and the phone conversation with Grover last week reveal a disgusting pattern of harassment at the NRC. It puts a repulsive face on a national, taxpayer-supported institution dedicated to scientific research.
“Men and women with advanced degrees and training appear to have spent hours scheming and managing the harassment of a leading scientist with a proven research and managerial track record."

The Ottawa Citizen, 7 April 1994 Comment: Official Circles
“As the Human Rights Tribunal concluded two years ago: ‘We find that the conduct of NRC management resulted not only in the destruction of Dr. Grover’s career, but caused him undue stress and illness, disrupted his family and home life, and put unnecessary stress on his family members."
“What message does this give to the rest of the NRC’s employees, indeed, to all public servants" It says anyone who seeks proper justice does so at the risk of being hounded, harassed, and ultimately ruined.
“And what now" It is one thing for Grover finally to assume the senior position he deserves; quite another to have to sit at the same board-room table and be expected to function in productive harmony with those who have sought to destroy him.

The Ottawa Citizen, 19 April 1994 ?Comment: Official Circles
“Reaction to our recent story about Chander Grover’s tragic discrimination case against the National Research Council ?and the resulting destruction of his career "suggests he is not the only victim of shameful mismanagement at the federal agency."
“… the Human Rights tribunal has upheld Grover’s grievance and severely hammered the agency not once, but twice.
“Instead of fixing the problem years ago, the NRC has stuck Grover in an unsuitable job, hounded him with government lawyers, and generally made life miserable."

The Ottawa Sunday Sun, 23 August 1992
“Ottawa MP Marlene Catterall who fought on Grover’s behalf said she will also urge a federal government review with the aim of prosecuting staff.
“’I think it’s very important so people know this not something you can get away with in the public service,' she said.

At the present time Dr. Grover has three outstanding human rights complaints against the National Research Council that alleged that he experiened racial discrimination in employment. He also has a civil suit outstanding in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice with respect to the violation of his equality rights under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This lawsuit is being supported by funds from the Court Challenges Program. There is also a hearing before the Public Service Staff Relations Board to hear five grievances filed between July and August 2004. The PSSRB hearing will take place April 12-14, 2005.

As the newspaper articles and decisions from various tribunals and Courts would illustrate, Dr. Grover has been involved in litigation with the NRC for close to two decades. The various Tribunal decisions clearly sets out the conditions under which Dr. Grover worked and the treatment to which he was subjected in employment. Justice Sean Harrington said this in his most recent decision in this saga "Remember these numbers: H30947, H32471, H32637 and H47999. These are the numbers assigned by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the "Commission") to four complaints of racial discrimination, levied by Dr. Grover against his long-term employer, the National Research Council ("NRC")." Three of Dr. Grover's human rights complaints was referred to a Human Rights Tribunal but sent back down to the Commission because of what the Court found to be a breach of the rules of procedural fairness. See, Canada (Attorney General) v. Grover 2004 FC 704 (T-1923-03, 14th May, 2004). The Commission now has to continue its investigation and issue a "proper" decision. The allegations of Dr. Grover of racial discrimination are merely allegations until the new investigation of the Commission determines that they are made out on a balance of probabilities and that a hearing is warranted under the provisions of the CHRA. Alternatively, the Court can make a finding in respect to the Charter that Dr. Grover's equality rights under section 15 of the Charter was violated. It also does not mean that human rights defenders such as myself, who has worked in the federal public service and myself has experienced racial discrimination, will not speak out against racism whereever and whenever it rears its ugly head. It also does not preclude Dr. Grover from speaking about his experience at NRC and seeking support from human rights defenders including the operator of this anti-racism website.

Lessons Not Learnt:

The NRC hired a former Federal Department of Justice Lawyer now in private practice in Vancouver, British Columbia, to issue a threat of a civil action in respect of this page. That will be discussed in more details below as such a threat is groundless, frivolous and a waste of private and public time and money. It would be interesting to obtain a breakdown of the public funds expended over the past eighteen years in NRC's litigation with Dr. Grover. Hopefully we can have a public accounting and release of the funds expended in short order.

Solicitors for the National Research Council and agents for the Department of Justice wrote to complain about the reputation of the National Research Council and to seek an apology suitable to them alleging that this website "cause(d) irreparable harm to its reputation and impede the NRC's ability to deliver on its mandate."

The Ottawa Citizen, 19 April 1994, Comment: Official Circles, wrote "instead of fixing the problem years ago, the NRC has stuck Grover in an unsuitable job, hounded him with government lawyers, and generally made life miserable."

It is instructive to observe that everything on this website is already in the public domain and has been widely reported on and published: See, See, "Discrimination victim says the NRC is trying to force him to quit - Suspended over refusal to see council's chosen physician" Ottawa Citizen, September 16, 2004; Grover v. National Research Council Canada 92 C.L.L.C./7046 (CHRT); Racism Rampant in Public Service: Senator December 08, 2004, Ottawa Citizen. See also, Canadian Research Council found guilty of racial bias by David Spurgeon, Nature, 10th September 1992: Vol 359 No 6391 p. 95; "Tribunal Findings Put a Repulsive Face on a National Institution" The Gazette, Montreal, 31 August 1992, The Page Two Column; Discrimination at NRC: Further Science of Injustice and Racist Treatment The Ottawa Citizen, 9 July 1993; "NRC Condemned for Racism and NRC Found Guilty" The Ottawa Sunday Sun, 23 August 1992 and Globe and Mail, August 22, 1992.

I have no intention of apologizing to an organization that was found to have "discriminated against Dr. Chander Grover because of his race, colour and national origin." To the extent that Dr. Grover has three outstanding human rights complaint that alleged racial discrimination against NRC as well as a civil action to the same effect and to the extent that he is negatively impacted by the current stance taken by NRC I do not have any reason to rescind or retract anything I say in respect to NRC (a publicly funded entity) because my comments are not defamatory, inflammatory, insulting, or even that may contain notions of falsehood - how can it be when I am stating facts that is readily available in the public domain? Go to the Registry of Court Administration Service and request the Federal Court files in these matters T-2162-04; T-2018-04; T-1923-03. In addition, those who are interested can view the civil litigation file containing the materials filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

"Men and women with advanced degrees and training appear to have spent hours scheming and managing the harassment of a leading scientist with a proven research and managerial track record." "Tribunal Findings Put a Repulsive Face on a National Institution" The Gazette, Montreal, 31 August 1992, The Page Two Column

The Perspective of a Human Rights Defender:

Human Rights Defenders in the federal public service of Canada include anyone who has challenged acts or omissions that constitutes violation of fundamental human rights of themselves or others. These are people who ensure that the overriding public interest take paramountcy to the culture of impunity and secrecy that perpetrators of human rights violations thrive in. The Human rights defenders documents the violations, report them to the authorities internally or externally, insist that they be investigated and those who are found to be responsible be held accountable. In doing so, these civil servants put themselves at risk to their livelihood, careers, and sometimes physical and mental well-being.... The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decisions in Grover, as well as the Canadian Human Rights Commission summary of the case and the above cited newspaper excerpts are illustrative of the risks of coming forward with allegations of racial discrimination and the culture that pervades the federal public service.

Senior executives in the federal public service would point to the Canada Labour Code, Canadian Human Rights Act, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and numerous Treasury Board policies and guidelines that they say are designed to provide adequate protections and indicate their committment to human rights and to the broader public interest. However, these legislation and constitutional protection is meaningless unless they really provide protections and safeguards for those who are to be the beneficiaries....

Don't give up, don't capitulate, don't accept that racial harassment and discrimination is part of your daily existance in Canada. There are too many cases of racial discrimination in employment, in the provision of services and facilities at shopping malls, ports of entry, and with respect to diversity within the government, the bureaucracy, the judiciary and the legal system, to be litigated, to be spoken to, to be profiled on websites such as this one, to be spoken about at conferences, to be catalogued in academic and other papers. It means that one has to use, as I said above, the tools in one's toolkit to be the change you want your community, your service provider, your employer, to be.

We Hold These Truths To Be Self Evident:

On Speaking out against Racism and Other forms of Oppression: Campbell v. Jones 2002 NSCA 128, Justice Roscoe of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal ruled that in situations where there are serious Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and human rights violations the victim has the right and an obligation "to cry out loud and long against their transgressors in the public forum and -- in the case of children and others less capable of articulation of the issues -- to have their advocates cry out on their behalf."

On apologizing to institutions and individuals accused of racism: The Ontario Court of Appeal in the recent case of R. v. Brown, [2003] 64 O.R. (3d) 161 (a case involving an accusation of racial profiling) held that it was wrong for the lower court to have concluded that the complainant (a Black man) should have apologized to the white police officers for having raised the issue of racial profiling in the first place because of the damage to the police officers' reputations. The suggestion of an apology on the part of the racially profiled Black man was akin to suggesting that an alleged victim of sexual assault should apologize to the alleged perpetrator for reporting the alleged assault because of the damage to the alleged perpetrator’s reputation.

On the reputation of institutions and individuals accused of racism: The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission) (2000) 2 S.C.R. 307 held that the "reputation" of a Respondent to a human rights complaint was not a free standing right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

On racism in the judicial and quasi-judicial system:In R. v. Parks (1994), 84 C.C.C. (3d) 353 (Ont. C.A.) at 366-71, Doherty J.A. wrote "Racism, and in particular anti-black racism, is a part of our community's psyche. A significant segment of our community holds overtly racist views. A much larger segment subconsciously operates on the basis of negative racial stereotypes. Furthermore, our institutions, including the criminal justice system, reflect and perpetuate those negative stereotypes. These elements combine to infect our society as a whole with the evil of racism. Blacks are among the primary victims of that evil." The NRC lawyers wrote "absent any judicial or quasi-judicial decision confirming the veracity of any of the aforementioned phrases, particularly to a wider audience, is clear evidence of malice." I disagree, particularly since there are findings of systemic and institutionalised racism in the justice system and Canadian institutions. Moreover, there has been clear findings of racial discrimination against the National Research Council in relation to its treatment of Dr. Grover. See, Grover v. National Research Council Canada92 C.L.L.C./7046 (CHRT); Grover v. Canada (National Research Council) [1994] C.H.R.D. No. 6. See also, Canada (Attorney General) v. Liu. Past behavior is a strong predictor of future behavior. See, The Canadian Human Rights Commission anti-discrimination summary created on February 12, 2004 "In Dr. Chander Grover’s human rights complaint against the National Research Council (NRC), discussed earlier, the discrimination did not stop when Dr. Grover filed his complaint. In fact, it seemed to get worse." See also, Grover v. National Research Council Canada 92 C.L.L.C./7046 (CHRT) "As was properly pointed out by counsel for Dr. Grover, the discriminatory conduct on the part of the Respondent did not terminate on the filing of a complaint by Dr. Grover. Indeed, if anything aspects of the treatment appeared to intensify following the filing of the original complaint and the two amended complaints." (p. 59).

Blacks, South Asians and other visible minorities who experience daily the evil of racial discrimination in employment does not need validation from a Court or a Tribunal in order to speak about the repulsive nature of systemic discrimination and the deleterious effect of such treatment in the workplace. See, for example, Racism Rampant in Public Service: Senator December 08, 2004, Ottawa Citizen. See also, Canadian Research Council found guilty of racial bias by David Spurgeon, Nature, 10th September 1992: Vol 359 No 6391 p. 95; "Tribunal Findings Put a Repulsive Face on a National Institution" The Gazette, Montreal, 31 August 1992, The Page Two Column; Discrimination at NRC: Further Science of Injustice and Racist Treatment The Ottawa Citizen, 9 July 1993; "NRC Condemned for Racism and NRC Found Guilty" The Ottawa Sunday Sun, 23 August 1992 and Globe and Mail, August 22, 1992; "Discrimination victim says the NRC is trying to force him to quit - Suspended over refusal to see council's chosen physician" Ottawa Citizen, September 16, 2004.

Frivolous lawsuits are already far too common - Is the Taxpayers Going to Be on the Hook for this One?

The threats of a lawsuit by NRC is groundless, frivolous and a waste of private and public time and money. See, Gauthier v. Toronto Star Daily Newspapers Ltd. 2003 CanLII 49328 (ON S.C.).

As T.J. Rodgers, CEO of CYPRESS, wrote several years ago "Frivolous lawsuits are already far too common..." The Wall Street Journal, "Manager's Journal", September 23, 1996. T.J. Rodgers also wrote in The San Jose Mercury News, December 24, 1995:

"No one got excited when the receptionist announced there was a summons server in the lobby. Somehow, we get sued a lot.... Whenever we are sued or threatened with suits, I frame the letter and hang it on the long wall in my office, which is now covered with more than 30 frames. I recall, during one negotiation with a small company that was threatening to sue us, asking my secretary to hang an empty frame next to the collection.

"When the negotiation broke down to a threat of a suit, I walked over to the empty frame and used Clint Eastwood's famous line, "Make my day." They decided not to sue. At that time, our litigation record was perfect: We had never capitulated to a threat, lost a legal action, or paid a penny over legal issues to anyone.... It was simple legal extortion, as practiced by professionals..."

As the PSSRB stated in Chopra v. Treasury Board (Health Canada) [2001] C.P.S.S.R.B. No. 13, 2001 PSSRB 23, PSSRB File No. 166-2-29385 "By clamping down on individuals who voice their opinions on fundamental issues such as the ones at issue in the instant case (racism; discrimination; employment equity), a department simply risks reinforcing the perception that there is validity to the claim that racism does exist within that department." These views appears to be apposite in view of the recent conduct of NRC. See, also Campbell v. Jones 2002 NSCA 128. Racial discrimination is a crime against humanity. Human rights defenders ought not to be intimidated or silenced from decrying the existence of racial discrimination, regardless of whether the perpetrators carry badges, wear lab coats, occupy executive suites, are civil servants or wear judicial robes.

Grover v. National Research Council Canada92 C.L.L.C./7046 (CHRT)

Excerpt from 1992 Human Rights Tribunal Decision

Grover v. Canada (National Research Council) [1994] C.H.R.D. No. 6

Grover v. National Research Council of Canada2001 FCT 687 (T-586-98, 21st June, 2001)

Canada (Attorney General) v. Grover 2004 FC 704 (T-1923-03, 14th May, 2004)

Excerpts from the Media Reports 1992 - 1996

Editorial: Blatant Discrimination The Ottawa Citizen, 25 May 1996 -- Editorial

Persistent Stupidity Twarts Justice at NRC

Time to Say Enough The Ottawa Citizen, 7 April 1994 Comment: Official Circles

Discrimination at NRC: Further Science of Injustice and Racist Treatment The Ottawa Citizen, 9 July 1993 Editorial and The Toronto Star, 23 July 1993 Editorial

NRC Condemned for Racism and NRC Found Guilty The Ottawa Sunday Sun, 23 August 1992 and Globe and Mail, August 22, 1992

Tribunal Findings Put a Repulsive Face on a National Institution The Gazette, Montreal, 31 August 1992 The Page Two Column

Canadian Research Council found guilty of racial bias by David Spurgeon, Nature, 10th September 1992: Vol 359 No 6391 p. 95

Discrimination victim says the NRC is trying to force him to quit - Suspended over refusal to see council's chosen physician Ottawa Citizen, September 16, 2004.

Racism Rampant in Public Service: Senator December 08, 2004, Ottawa Citizen

MP Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): HANSARD, Friday May 03, 1996, Parliament of Canada

Employer Ordered to Remedy Discriminatory Treatment Canadian Human Rights Reporter

HUMAN RIGHTS LAW IN B.C.: RACE DISCRIMINATION Canadian Human Rights Reporter

Grover v. Canada (National Research Council)

Anti-Discrimination Casebook: Race, Colour, National or Ethnic Origin Canadian Human Rights Commission

Human Rights Research and Education Centre's Media Guide

Template For Investigating Discrimination And Harassment Complaints At The University Of Alberta

Canada ( Attorney General ) v. Liu

Duplication of any of these pages in any form without the express permission of the owner is strictly prohibited.