Okanagan prison guard’s claim of discrimination shot down by BC Supreme Court

A prospective Okanagan prison guard who failed too many tests and opportunities to hang onto his job has failed again, this time in his latest of several legal attempts to get one more shot.

Steve Shin was hired on a probationary basis as a correctional officer at the Okanagan Regional Correction Centre in Oliver. A Jan. 20 BC Supreme Court decision lays out the required steps for Shin’s probationary period.

He began his training in 2017, but he wasn’t off to a good start. He borrowed his classmate’s notes, which was prohibited, and failed a written test.

He retook the test and passed, but then failed another test and then passed the retest.

He failed a third test and got fired, but a week later, the correctional centre had a change of heart and he was allowed to continue on-the-job training.

The decision doesn’t say how much he was making, but wages for correction officers in BC start at $36 an hour.

Having managed to avoid losing his job, he then joined another cohort of recruits for his security officer training.

Again, he borrowed notes from his classmates but this time managed to pass his exams. However, he was now under investigation for dishonest behaviour for borrowing his classmate’s notes.

He also didn’t fare well in the role-playing scenarios part of the training and failed each and every one of them.

In May 2017, almost one year after he began working at the Oliver prison, he had his offer of employment rescinded.

Shin then launched a case at the BC Human Rights Tribunal claiming his dismissal was discriminatory because it did not accommodate his English language skills.

“He further alleges that (BC Corrections) targeted him and discriminated against him, including in his evaluations, on human rights grounds,” the decision reads.

Shin, who was born in South Korea and moved to Canada in 2007, claimed he was discriminated against on the grounds of age, ancestry, place of origin and race.

The Human Rights Tribunal didn’t accept that argument and dismissed his case.

“There was no reasonable prospect that (Shin) could establish that his protected characteristics were a factor in the… decision to terminate his employment. The Tribunal also addressed the alternative argument that the (Okanagan Regional Correctional Centre) were reasonably certain to establish a bona fide occupational requirement based on the need to accurately assess a candidate’s qualification for the Correctional Officer job.”

Clearly not happy with the result, Shin argued the Tribunal’s ruling was “patently unreasonable” and filed in the BC Supreme Court for a judicial review.

“The crux of (Shin’s) complaint was that he had ‘language proficiency’ issues for which he required extra support. By not providing that support and instead taking a series of unusual, extraordinary measures to set him up to fail, (Shin) argued he was discriminated against based on ancestry, race, and place of origin,” BC Supreme Court Justice Alison Latimer says in the decision.

However, the Justice points out that language is not a protected characteristic under the Human Rights Code.

“The Tribunal concluded in this case that language was not itself a protected ground, and that there was no evidence to establish a nexus between language and Mr. Shin’s protected characteristics,” the Justice says.

Shin made various other arguments that the correctional facility had discriminated against him, but the Supreme Court said the Tribunal was right to dismiss them.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed Shin’s appeal.