Date Issued: December 11, 2015

File: 13096
Indexed as: Gowland v. Gill, 2015 BCHRT 187
IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE
R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210 (as amended)
AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
B E T W E E N:
Jocelyn Gowland
COMPLAINANT
A N D:
Kulwinder Singh Gill
RESPONDENT

REASONS FOR DECISION

Tribunal Member:

Parnesh Sharma

On her own behalf:

Jocelyn Gowland

On his own behalf:

Kulwinder Singh Gill

Date of the Hearing:

November 30, 2015

Location of Hearing:

Vancouver

INTRODUCTION

[1]

Jocelyn Gowland (Complainant) complains that Kulwinder Singh Gill

(Respondent) discriminated against her in the area of tenancy contrary to s. 10 of the

Code owing to her colour and sex.
[2]

I have reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented, but reference and

summarize only what was necessary in making my decision.

[3]

I find the complaint not justified for reasons as follows:

II

WITNESSES

[4]

Both parties were self-represented. Ms. Gowland testified on her own behalf and

called Kirk Rempel as a witness. Kulwinder Gill testified on his own behalf and called
two witnesses: Teresa Jakovac and Barbara Leigh Lochrie. Mr. Gill was also assisted in
the hearing by his daughter.
[5]

Prior to the commencement of proceedings I asked Mr. Gill if he required the

assistance of an interpreter. He replied he did not. Following the conclusion of direct

testimony, Mr. Gill indicated some difficulties in understanding the proceedings. I again
asked if he required an interpreter and offered to adjourn the hearing for that purpose.
However, he wished to continue saying he understood most and would rely upon his
daughter for clarification and other assistance as needed. Ms. Gowland also wished to
proceed.
[6]

As the parties were self-represented I accorded both considerable flexibility in the

presentation of their respective cases and, on occasion, clarified issues for the benefit of
both parties in an attempt to help focus the proceedings. In my introduction I reminded
Ms. Gowland that it was her case to make and that she must, as a first step, prove a prima
facie case of discrimination. I outlined the Moore test and that the standard of proof in
Tribunal proceedings was a balance of probabilities (Moore v. British Columbia
(Education), 2012 SCC 61. Ms. Gowland replied she understood and had undertaken
research to prepare for the hearing.

[7]

Both Ms. Gowland and Mr. Gill had some difficulty articulating their testimonies.

I ascribed this to an unfamiliarity with the proceedings and suggested they read from preprepared statements which had already been entered as Exhibits (5 and 6 respectively). I
assured them that they would have as much time as needed for cross-examination and
rebuttals. The portion of Mr. Gills statement that referenced without prejudice and
confidential information from an earlier Tribunal-conducted mediation between the
parties was struck and not accepted as evidence.
[8]

The witnesses called by both parties gave evidence in a straightforward manner. I

found them credible.

[9]

While, in general, Ms. Gowland testified in a straightforward manner, her answers

were, on occasion, rambling and incomplete and lacking in coherence. She often trailedoff in mid-sentence or concluded her answers with a shrug or with vernacular catchphrases such as stuff like that or you know. In this respect, I accorded Ms. Gowland
the benefit of doubt as I did not consider she intended to mislead the Tribunal. I generally
accepted that she appeared to believe most of what she testified. However, for reasons
outlined below, I found some of her conclusions speculative and unreliable and not those
of a reasonably objective observer.
[10]

I found Mr. Gill to be a credible witness. Where there was discrepancy between

his evidence and that of Ms. Gowland, I preferred the evidence of Mr. Gill.
EVIDENCE
[11]

When resolving conflicts in the evidence, and determining whether to accept the

evidence of any witness, in whole or in part, I have been guided by considerations set out
in Bradshaw v. Stenner, 2010 BCSC 1398, para. 186 (citations excluded):
Credibility involves an assessment of the trustworthiness of a witness
testimony based upon the veracity or sincerity of a witness and the
accuracy of the evidence that the witness provides. The art of assessment
involves examination of various factors such as the ability and opportunity
to observe events, the firmness of his [or her] memory, the ability to resist
the influence of interest to modify his [or her] recollection, whether the
witness evidence harmonizes with independent evidence that has been
accepted, whether the witness changes his [or her] testimony during direct
and cross-examination, whether the witness testimony seems

unreasonable, impossible, or unlikely, whether a witness has a motive to

lie, and the demeanour of a witness generally. Ultimately, the validity of
the evidence depends on whether the evidence is consistent with the
probabilities affecting the case as a whole and shown to be in existence at
the time (emphasis mine).
[12]

Ms. Gowland rented a basement suite in the residence of Mr. Gill. She assumed

tenancy on August 2014 and remained there until her departure in December 2014.
Evidence presented during the hearing painted a fraught landlord/tenant relationship, with
conflict and/or problems arising from the very start of the tenancy. Ms. Gowland said she
paid the rent and had receipts; Mr. Gill said that he received a damage deposit in the
amount of $350.00, but not the rent; Ms. Gowland said she had given the rent to Mr.
Gills relative and suggested it may have been stolen. She said she had receipts, but did
not produce them at the hearing. While the evidence concerning this particular issue was
not clear, I understood that it had been adjudicated by the Residential Tenancy Branch
(RTB) and apparently settled. It was clear, however, that it remains an area of
disagreement and conflict between the parties.
[13]

Ms. Gowland testified that Mr. Gill and his family members referred to her as

gori and it was an everyday occurrence; that she often overheard the word in
conversations between members of the Gill family. She said the word gori, when used
in reference to her, was offensive and a slur. She called it reverse racism and said
its just rude; why not call a person by her name.
[14]

Ms. Gowland does not speak or understand Punjabi, but said she understood some

swear words and that gori meant white girl. I asked if she could carry on a
conversation or pass an informal oral test in Punjabi; she replied no. I asked if she
understood the context of the discussions whenever she heard the word gori; she
replied no.
[15]

In explaining her level of offence Ms. Gowland said she considered gori to be

analogous to the N word. During my questions I told Ms. Gowland that I spoke Hindi
and understood some Punjabi (gori is also a Hindi word meaning white girl) and that,
in my understanding, there is nothing negative or derogatory attached to the word. I also

told her that her analogy was probably not one that most would make. Ms. Gowland
replied she still found gori offensive and definitely so.
[16]

Ms. Gowland testified she heard the word gori every day at the residence and

that it was in reference to her. She also overheard it in private conversations between
members of the Gill family and in comments outside her window as members of the Gill
family walked passed it enroute to visit family members in the house next door. While
the comments or conversations were in Punjabi, they were directed at her she testified. I
asked how she knew that it was her who was the subject. She said whenever gori and/or
gora were uttered by the Gills she assumed she was being talked about. She said call
me paranoid . . . it felt like they were always talking about me because of everything
going on with that . . . The everything going on was in reference to the dispute
concerning rental monies: Ms. Gowland maintains she is fully paid up, while Mr. Gill
says the rent is in arrears by at least two months. The amount $1,400.00 was mentioned
several times.
[17]

Ms. Gowland testified that Mr. Gills son, a three-year old, also uses gori and

has been taught to fear her as in goris gonna get you. Mr. Gill denies this but allows
that his son may have referred to Ms. Gowland as gori, not to offend, but because the
child speaks Punjabi.
[18]

Ms. Gowland said she asked Mr. Gill to stop referring to her as gori and to

address her by her proper name. This, she testified, had no effect as he continued to refer
to her as gori.
[19]

Mr. Gill denies this and said at no time was he ever told by Ms. Gowland that she

found gori racist or disrespectful. He also said he and his family members speak in
Punjabi and gori is simply a general term for white girls or white women in everyday
conversation, and was not in specific reference to Ms. Gowland. He did say that he
referred to Ms. Gowland as gori because he could not pronounce her name. Mr. Gill
said Ms. Gowland may have overheard gori, but it does not mean we were talking
about her. Mr. Gill testified that gori is a common word and may have included
references to Ms. Gowland, but the use of gori in everyday conversation was because
that is how we refer to white women or white people in Punjabi.

[20]

Ms. Gowland testified that Mr. Gill or members of his family retaliated against

her by breaking a window in her car. She did not see or does not know who did it, but
said it must have been something to do with all this and believes it was done by the
Gills because nothing was stolen. She then added theres no reason why it would
happen. I understood all this to be in reference, again, to her apparently ongoing
dispute with Mr. Gill over rent. I note that Ms. Gowland said it was the drivers side
window, but her witness, Mr. Remple, said it was the passenger window. I considered
this discrepancy minor.
[21]

Mr. Remples testimony was brief. He does not understand or speak Punjabi, but

also overheard gori and said that Ms. Gowland did not like the word and found it
offensive.
[22]

Ms. Gowland also presented a photograph (Exhibit 6) featuring several black

plastic rubbish bags; the bags were ripped open and rubbish strewn. She said they [the
Gills] did it. When asked if she had seen them do it she replied no. When asked on what
basis she believed the Gills responsible, she replied they were looking for a cause to
evict me.
[23]

Ms. Gowland testified she believed the Gills to be responsible for a pop bomb

thrown at her window. This, she said, was further retaliation and an attempt to get her to
move. She described the pop-bomb as a 2L soda bottle filled with acid. She did not see or
know who threw the bomb, but believes it was the Gills and that it was directed at her
because it landed close to her window. When asked why at you? she replied, because I
was in the house. When reminded that the Gills were also in the house and the bomb
could also have been directed at them, she maintained that she was the target. She
believed it was owing to whatever was going on with them because she was in the
house and people just dont do that . . . I mean who does that . . . its crazy. The
whatever going on with them I understood was again in reference to the dispute over
rent.
[24]

Ms. Gowland was reminded that she had also alleged discrimination owing to her

sex and asked to lead evidence on the issue. I explained she had given evidence
concerning her allegation of discrimination owing to colour, but had yet to provide

evidence concerning sex. She replied, I am a white girl . . . plain and simple . . . I dont
like being called a white girl.
[25]

At this stage I explained adverse impact and the required nexus between Mr.

Gills conduct and the protected characteristics under the Code. I asked Ms. Gowland to
provide evidence regarding the adverse impact owing to her colour and sex because of
Mr. Gills conduct. She replied that being called gori made her feel less than human and
indecent; that she considered it rude and demeaning; that the Gills acted like I was
gross. I also explained that being evicted may be considered adverse impact; she replied
that she had left on her own volition. In this respect her answer was rambling and
unfocused: she said she no longer wished to live there . . . its not a good place . . . stuff
like that . . . issues about rent . . . I agreed to leave. No one wants to live there . . . too
much tension . . . I wasnt happy . . . had to make a deal with the RTB . . . letting my dog
out . . . just little things. It appears, however, that Ms. Gowland vacated the premises
owing to an agreement under the auspices of the RTB.
[26]

Mr. Gill testified that problems with Ms. Gowland commenced at the start of the

tenancy. He said, as landlord and the person agreeing to the tenancy, he ought to have
been paid the rent; her claim of having paid a relative is untrue, and he is still owed rent.
He said Ms. Gowland has been a rude and disruptive tenant who had all sorts of wrong
people visiting resulting in many police visits. When he issued an eviction notice, Ms.
Gowland ripped it up and threw it away.
[27]

Mr. Gill admitted to referring to Ms. Gowland as gori, but denied using the word

as a slur. He repeated that gori is simply how white people are referred to in Punjabi and
it is not an offensive reference.
[28]

Mr. Gill said he did not discriminate and would not have rented to her in the first

place if he was racist. He said the tenancy created many problems to the point where he
offered to waive the monies owing, provided Ms. Gowland vacated the premises.
[29]

Mr. Gill testified that when Ms. Gowland finally left she completely thrashed our

basement. His two witnesses testified to the state of the premises after Ms. Gowland had
vacated the suite. Ms. Lochrie said that Ms. Gowland was a disruptive tenant who had
visitors coming and going at all hours; Ms. Jakovac was invited by Mr. Gill to see the
6

place after Ms. Gowlands departure. Both witnesses testified that the suite had been
seriously damaged. They said the front door was busted and the frame ruined; it was
filthy, smelly, windows smashed, with syringes, blood stains, and dog feces everywhere.
[30]

Ms. Gowland denied having damaged the suite and said it had been vacant for

many months after her departure and, therefore, the damage must have been done by
someone else.
[31]

Mr. Gill said, after Ms. Gowlands departure, the suite was uninhabitable and

required several months to repair the damages; he submitted various photographs of the
damages and said the damages could not have been done by anyone but Ms. Gowland.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
[32]

Ms. Gowland alleges she was discriminated against because of her colour and sex.

The allegation is based on how she was treated by Mr. Gill during the period of their
tenancy agreement from August 2014 to December 2014.
[33]

The complaint is under s. 10 of the Code which provides:

(1) A person must not
(a) deny to a person or class of persons the right to occupy, as a
tenant, space that is represented as being available for occupancy
by a tenant, or
(b) discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding a term
or condition of the tenancy of the space
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital
status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual
orientation or age of that person or class of persons.

[34]

The onus is on Ms. Gowland to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr.

Gill discriminated against her on the basis of her colour and/or sex. She must establish a
prima facie case, one which covers the allegations made and which, if the allegations are
believed, is sufficient to justify a finding in her favour: Ontario Human Rights
Commission and OMalley v. Simpson-Sears Limited, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 526.

[35]

To establish a prima facie case, Ms. Gowland must prove that:

(a) She has a characteristic protected from discrimination under the Code;
(b) She was adversely treated or experienced adverse impact in relation
her tenancy; and
(c) Her protected disability was, at least a factor in the adverse treatment
by Mr. Gill: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61.

PRIMA FACIE CASE ANALYSIS

Protected Characteristic
[36]

There is no issue that Ms. Gowland is a white female. Colour and sex are

characteristics protected under the Code; therefore Ms. Gowland has established the first
element of a prima facie case.
Adverse Treatment
[37]

The nub of Ms. Gowlands complaint concerns the use of the Punjabi or Hindi

noun gori. I find Mr. Gill and his family members used the word often; that it was used
in everyday conversation; and, that there was nothing unusual or pejorative in its usage.
Gori was used as a simple noun, for that is what the word is, as general reference to
white women or white people. I find that gori was also used to refer to Ms. Gowland. I
find Mr. Gill and his family members considered the word innocuous and inoffensive and
that it was not used by them as a slur or to demean Ms. Gowland.
[38]

However, intention is not a prerequisite for a finding of discrimination. The focus

of a discrimination analysis is on the effect of the conduct on the complainant rather than
the intention of the respondent. Innocuous or apparently innocuous words or words
considered inoffensive by some may be not so regarded or perceived as such by the
listener, in this case, Ms. Gowland. I accept Mr. Gills testimony he was unaware that
Ms. Gowland found gori offensive and that, contrary to her testimony, he had never
been asked by her to stop referring to her as gori.
[39]

In all instances, I prefer Mr. Gills evidence over that of Ms. Gowlands owing to

an overall unreliability with her evidence. I found her evidence speculative and
inconsistent with the probabilities affecting the case as a whole. I find Ms. Gowlands

offense to be one of affectation and her complaint motivated, in part, by animus towards
Mr. Gill. For example, she has accused Mr. Gill, based on nothing more than
assumptions, of serious acts of vandalism (broken car window) and worse (of throwing a
pop bomb with her as a target). This suggests a view susceptible to fanciful
interpretations. And, as she said so herself, her views may be due to paranoia and that
every time she heard or overheard gori, she assumed it was her being discussed. I
cannot place much reliance on her evidence. I cannot be certain about the veracity of
some of her statements given her speculations and assumptions. I find her conclusions,
concerning the entirety of her complaint against Mr. Gill, not those of a reasonably
objective observer.
[40]

I find that Ms. Gowland was a difficult and disruptive tenant. I also find it more

probable than not that she misled Mr. Gill concerning payment of rental monies, the
primary cause of their dispute. I find her statement about giving the rent to Mr. Gills
relative, which was then later stolen by that or another relative, to have a ring of
improbability. I found it singular that she did not produce receipts for the rent payments
after saying she had them in her possession. She attended the hearing with a written
statement and submitted photographs (Exhibit 6), as proof of Mr. Gills creating cause for
her eviction, but had no documentation or receipts concerning what is at the heart of their
dispute. While the issue before me is whether discrimination occurred, it was clear that
the parties perspectives on that issue were inseparable from the larger dispute between
them.
[41]

Ms. Gowland testified she found gori demeaning and as offensive as the N

word. I can take notice that the N word is almost universally recognized as offensive.
However, I can take no such notice of the word gori. Ms. Gowland, aside from a
personally held opinion of the word gori as being offensive, provided no objective or
other evidence in support. She presented no objective evidence upon which to conclude
that gori is a slur or an offensive word and/or that it is analogous to the N word.
[42]

Ms. Gowland does not speak Punjabi, but understands a few words, including the

word gori. Words may mean different things to different listeners. And much depends
on the context and the cultural milieu within which conversations take place. Without

proper context, nuance and subtlety are absent and meanings are imprecise or lost. I
accept that perception of what some words may mean depends, to some extent, on the
sensibility of the listener. In other words, the listener knows whether he or she is
offended. That said, there must be some objective basis to support a perception or belief
that one has been or is offended. Adverse treatment or effect, therefore, must be
determined from both a subjective and objective perspective, including consideration of
the impact on the individuals personal dignity: Stone v. B.C. (Ministry of Health) (No. 7),
2007 BCHRT 55. The objective perspective is absent in this complaint.
[43]

While Ms. Gowland may have taken offence to the word gori and being referred

to as gori or white girl, I find this to be an affectation. While she may have heard the
word gori uttered in private conversations between members of the Gill family, she
provided no evidence, aside from assumptions, that it was her being discussed. Ms.
Gowland does not understand Punjabi and could not have know what the conversations,
private or otherwise, were about. That she assumes they were about her is speculation.
Even if she is correct, the mere fact that she is a subject of discussion, without proper
context, leaves the matter open to speculation. While the focus here is on the effect of the
words, I find that Ms. Gowlands interpretation of the word gori was based largely on her
speculation about Mr. Gills intentions toward her.
[44]

I find the adverse treatment Ms. Gowland complains of not established on the

evidence presented. The word she complains of as being offensive and analogous to the
N word is not supported by objective evidence. Words may mean different things to
different people, but it cannot mean whatever one chooses it to mean. Further that she
complains of being adversely impacted, owing to Mr. Gills conduct, is an affectation.
[45]

For all these reasons, I find that Ms. Gowland has failed to establish a prima facie

case that the Respondents discriminated against her on the basis of colour or sex, contrary
to s. 10 of the Code.

10

III

CONCLUSION

[46]

As a result of Ms. Gowlands failure to establish a prima facie case, I find the

complaint not justified and dismiss it pursuant to s. 37(1) of the Code.

11