dailynewsnblog
A Court of King’s Bench judge has ordered the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission to take a second look at a complaint it originally dismissed.
The complaint concerns a policy requiring employees of a Starbucks kiosk at Royal University Hospital in Saskatoon to only speak English or French.
The kiosk was run by the Saskatchewan Health Authority (SHA). It has since closed.
The complaint against the SHA was filed by a Filipino woman who tried to speak to an employee, who was also Filipino, in Tagalog. According to the court ruling by Justice Shawn Smith, the employee said they were not allowed to speak Tagalog and would be formally reprimanded if they did.
The human rights commission dismissed the woman’s complaint without investigating. She followed up with the commission, providing more information and further arguing her case.
“She argued that not being permitted service in Tagalog constituted an adverse impact on her and that this impact was intentional, or at least indirect, discrimination against the Filipino community in particular,” the court ruling says.
A Court of King’s Bench judge has ordered the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission to reconsider investigating the case of a Filipino woman who was unable to order Starbucks from a Filipino worker in their native language because of a hospital language policy.
She then applied for a judicial review, leading to the decision issued by the court last month.
The ruling does not examine whether the complaint itself is valid. It focuses on whether it was reasonable for the commission to dismiss the complaint without investigation. Smith found it was not.
In denying the claim, the human rights commission focused on whether language is always inextricably linked to culture. It cited cases that found it was not, and could be considered simply a tool for communication.
Smith wrote that the commission’s decision did not contain “the necessary legal analysis,” but that this point alone would not make the dismissal unreasonable, if it was the complainant’s only argument.
However, Smith found the commission failed to respond to the complainant’s assertion that the banning of Tagalog at the kiosk was “a deliberate act of racism against Filipino employees.”
“As evidence, she attached as part of her complaint an email sent to SHA in December 2022, which (amid some uncouth and intolerant commentary) asked that SHA enforce a strict English-only policy for its employees,” the ruling said.
Smith wrote that the commission did not consider this argument or the supporting evidence, and also failed to consider other sections of the code that could have been relevant in this case.
“The decision is quashed and remitted to the commission for reconsideration,” the ruling said.
‘Language is deeply connected to who we are’: Filipino association president
Janine Lazaro, president of the Filipino-Canadian Association of Saskatchewan (FILCAS), said in an email that her organization has been closely following the case.
She said FILCAS believes the incident highlights broader conversations around inclusion, cultural identity and respect in the workplace.
“For many Filipinos, language is deeply connected to who we are. Speaking Tagalog with fellow Filipinos is not only a form of communication, but also an expression of culture, comfort, and community,” Lazaro said.
“At the same time, we recognize that workplaces particularly in healthcare environments often have policies in place to ensure clear and effective communication for all.”
She said she hopes the incident sparks respectful dialogue about the balance between operational needs and cultural understanding.
“It is important that individuals do not feel discouraged or singled out because of their language or cultural background,” she said.
“Our language is an integral part of our identity, and if a Starbucks employee can communicate in it with a fellow Filipino, why should we discriminate against them for doing so?”
Expert calls situation ‘incomprehensible’
Steven Lewis, a health policy analyst, said he was “dumbfounded” when he heard about the language policy at the kiosk.
“There’s a lot of strange stories in health care, but this, this is Top 5 for sure,” he said.
He questioned why such a policy would be enacted to begin with.
“Somebody in the Saskatchewan Health Authority had to have looked at this letter, which the judge described as basically offensive, and said, ‘Well, that’s something we will take seriously,'” Lewis said.
“It is incomprehensible that this chain of events would end up with that kind of situation.”
Lewis said there is no reason for the policy to exist at a coffee kiosk.
“If you have a team in the ICU dealing with a patient in a life-threatening situation, of course you should all speak the same language. That’s just common sense,” he said.
“But this has nothing to do with the provision of health care. There was no patient here. There was nobody at risk here.”
The health authority declined a CBC request for an interview to explain why the policy was implemented, but did provide a statement regarding its “workplace expectations policy.”
The SHA said it is “committed to providing safe, equitable and consistent care across the province, in part by having clear, evidence-based policies that govern our interactions with patients and between health-care providers.”
It went on to say that it does not have a policy that employees must only speak English and does not prohibit other languages, “so long as the communication is understood by everyone involved.”
The SHA did not directly address the human rights complaint or the kiosk in its statement.
Lewis said not doing an interview to further explain the situation was another mistake.
“It would be very simple just to say this went off the rails, it was a terrible policy, we’ve apologized to the complainant,” he said.
“Now, by digging in their heels and refusing to do interviews, it just creates the impression that, yes, this was a serious mistake and we’re hoping it goes away and we’re not talking about it.”
