Singh Bhinder v. Canada
Human Rights Committee
Comm. No. 208/1986, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/37/D/208/1986 (1989)

- Written by Katrina Sumner, JD
Facts
Karnel Singh Bhinder (plaintiff) was a Sikh who was born in India and became a citizen of Canada (defendant). Bhinder worked at the Canadian National Railway Company (the company) in a coach yard in Toronto at night. The company was a Crown Corporation answerable to the Canadian Parliament. Bhinder was employed as a maintenance electrician, and his job involved inspecting the undercarriages of trains and performing maintenance, such as working on train engines. The Toronto coach yard had 487 employees, and 52 employees were electricians. Because 20 employees had suffered head injuries in a five-year period, the company implemented a new rule designating the Toronto coach yard where Bhinder worked as a hard-hat area. This meant that all employees were required to wear protective headgear for safety. However, this rule presented a problem for Bhinder. A key tenet of the Sikh faith required Bhinder to wear only a turban on his head. Canada’s labor code provided that employers were not permitted to allow and employees were not allowed to work on electrical facilities with a certain amount of voltage without insulated clothing and other protective gear. The labor code also forbade employers from permitting employees to work and employees from working with electricity where hard hats were required if the employee was not wearing a hard hat. Bhinder refused to wear a hard hat and rejected the opportunity to transfer to some other position. Bhinder was fired. Bhinder authored a communication alleging a violation of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the covenant). Canada argued that Bhinder was not fired due to his religion but due to his refusal to wear safety gear. Canada asserted that the subject legislation—which was neutral, not targeting any religion and applicable to all persons working with electricity—did not violate Article 18. The Human Rights Committee considered both Article 18, which protected freedom of religion, and Article 26, which prohibited discrimination, because Bhinder alleged that the legislation discriminated against adherents of the Sikh faith.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.