Skip to content

Objects to being called 'brother,' man files human rights complaint

Argues that it implies he's Christian when, in fact, he's atheist; judge dismisses complaint
220118_elgin_mission
An Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed a complaint from a Sudbury man who claimed a member of the Elgin Street Mission broke a settlement to an earlier complaint by calling him 'brother.' (File)

An Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed a complaint from a Sudbury man who said a member of the Elgin Street Mission broke a settlement to an earlier complaint by calling him 'brother.'

The man, Richard Maisonneuve, had filed previous complaints against the Mission, a non-profit Christian group that helps the needy in Sudbury. Among the reasons for the complaints is that, as an atheist, Maisonneuve objected to being called 'brother,' arguing it suggested he was Christian when he is not.

The staff member, Ron Lachance, was aware that the man objected to being called 'brother,' but used it anyway, the tribunal transcripts say. Maisonneuve named Mission Chaplain Rene Soullière in the complaint, even though he was not the person who used the term.

In the original settlement, both sides agreed not to “disparage each other in any way, electronically, orally or in writing.”

But Maisonneuve, who represented himself, said he was in a coffee shop in late 2016 or early 2017 when Lachance entered and greeted him with, “Hey! There's my brother!”

“The applicant claims that being called 'brother' by (the staffer) in the coffee shop was disparaging as he was publicly being associated with the Christian staff/volunteers of the Mission,” the transcript says.

However, adjudicator Bruce Best ruled that outside of any other arguments, Maisonneuve had to show that the 'brother' remark was made as part of the Mission staffer's work duties. That was not the case here, the judge ruled.

“To the contrary, the comment was made in public, in a coffee shop with no connection to the Mission or to Mr. Lachance’s work,” the adjudicator wrote. “As a result, the Mission is not vicariously liable for the comment … In the absence of vicarious liability, there is no basis on which I can find that a party has contravened the settlement ... and as such, the application must be dismissed.”


Comments

Verified reader

If you would like to apply to become a verified commenter, please fill out this form.