Calgary man out of a job after racist tirade caught on video.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

The problem, certain people feel, is it wasn't resolved. Outside of the video of the actual racist rant, the fact that the RCMP decided to do 'nothing' is part of the story now. People are wondering why the man didn't have the charges stick.

Part of me wonders if the original charges went nowhere because the cabbie decided not to press the charges, or the cab company talked him out of it after they accepted the guy's money.

If the cabbie goes to the RCMP and says that he no longer wants to pursue charges, there's not much the RCMP can do beyond drop them.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Part of me wonders if the original charges went nowhere because the cabbie decided not to press the charges, or the cab company talked him out of it after they accepted the guy's money.

If the cabbie goes to the RCMP and says that he no longer wants to pursue charges, there's not much the RCMP can do beyond drop them.

This is entirely incorrect. There is no such thing as "pressing charges" in Canada. The Crown prosecutes criminal offenders. All the cabbie would be is a witness, and there's video here.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Part of me wonders if the original charges went nowhere because the cabbie decided not to press the charges, or the cab company talked him out of it after they accepted the guy's money.

If the cabbie goes to the RCMP and says that he no longer wants to pursue charges, there's not much the RCMP can do beyond drop them.

Even if possible, the man's lawyer would have mentioned if it was the cab driver who didn't want to press charges. He said the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence, which is the reason there's been a collective "what?" given the video. It's why the RCMP has reopened the investigation and are taking steps to see if it was handled properly the first time around.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

There is no such thing as "pressing charges" in Canada.

Uh...if you say so, then.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The cabbie told Global the guy was never charged and he only fixed the physical damage to the cab. He willfully omitted the part where he accepted a few thousand in compensation and that charges WERE laid, but the RCMP didn't move forward because they didn't feel they has enough evidence. The RCMP would have kept him advised throughout the investigation, so he can't claim ignorance on that matter.

The reaction would have been much different if he said the guy offered him compensation and an apology and he accepted. He should have also said he knew that charges were laid but latter dropped.

Global should have done some basic fact checking before the went to print. Even if the cabbie wasn't truthful with Global, they should have checked and printed the whole story. But the whole story wouldn't have sold as many clicks.

As a result of the cabbies deceit and Global's laziness, the guy lost his job and now probably has to lay low for fear of his safety.

Ahahahahahahahaha!

Oh wait, you're serious.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The cabbie told Global the guy was never charged and he only fixed the physical damage to the cab. He willfully omitted the part where he accepted a few thousand in compensation and that charges WERE laid, but the RCMP didn't move forward because they didn't feel they has enough evidence. The RCMP would have kept him advised throughout the investigation, so he can't claim ignorance on that matter.

The reaction would have been much different if he said the guy offered him compensation and an apology and he accepted. He should have also said he knew that charges were laid but latter dropped.

Global should have done some basic fact checking before the went to print. Even if the cabbie wasn't truthful with Global, they should have checked and printed the whole story. But the whole story wouldn't have sold as many clicks.

As a result of the cabbies deceit and Global's laziness, the guy lost his job and now probably has to lay low for fear of his safety.

[HelloHockeyFans]

A mouthy racist got caught and was punished. Good!

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Uh...if you say so, then.

Isn't he right, tough? I know you interact with law enforcement, and that's why I'm surprised as this post seems to be a little sarcastic.

I've always been told that pressing charges is an American thing, and that Canadians can't just decide to press or drop charges, it's not their call.

Can anyone else confirm?

[EldrickOnIce]

The crown alone chooses when charges are laid.

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

The crown alone chooses when charges are laid.

If by Crown you mean RCMP in Alberta. Then yes, that's true.

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

The crown alone chooses when charges are laid.

If by Crown you mean Police in Alberta. Then yes, that's true. The crown does pre charge in B.C.

[Dagger]

What did the cab driver do that would cause such rage? I doubt a seething racist would sit in the front of a cab if he could sit in the back, and he lives in Airdrie; and references him getting "####ed"

If he was going for a joy ride with a drunk person, then I absolutely have less sympathy for him.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Dagger

What did the cab driver do that would cause such rage? I doubt a seething racist would sit in the front of a cab if he could sit in the back, and he lives in Airdrie; and references him getting "####ed"

If he was going for a joy ride with a drunk person, then I absolutely have less sympathy for him.

Nice conclusion jumping without reading anything about it; his boss and another co-worker sat in back but were dropped off before his rant.

But great job blaming the victim, you're a superstar.

[wontondestruction]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The cabbie told Global the guy was never charged and he only fixed the physical damage to the cab. He willfully omitted the part where he accepted a few thousand in compensation and that charges WERE laid, but the RCMP didn't move forward because they didn't feel they has enough evidence. The RCMP would have kept him advised throughout the investigation, so he can't claim ignorance on that matter.

The reaction would have been much different if he said the guy offered him compensation and an apology and he accepted. He should have also said he knew that charges were laid but latter dropped.

Global should have done some basic fact checking before the went to print. Even if the cabbie wasn't truthful with Global, they should have checked and printed the whole story. But the whole story wouldn't have sold as many clicks.

As a result of the cabbies deceit and Global's laziness, the guy lost his job and now probably has to lay low for fear of his safety.

Sorry, but where are you getting this information from? I would like to read it for myself. Thanks.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by ernie

Oh it's very accurate. Deal with it all the time as a manager in a large multinational. We get a significant amount of training every year on it. You don't get to just terminate. There is paperwork and explanation and usually to top it off and exit agreement signed and package given. To quote one source that agrees the companies approach.

"So there really is no such thing as “at-will” employment except for how long the employee decides to stay. From the employer’s perspective, the employment relationship is really a blend of statutory, contract/policy and circumstance."

http://www.hrexaminer.com/why-at-wil...isn%E2%80%99t/

The very good example the author gives is a company with a progressive discipline policy. It undermines at will because you aren't truly practicing at will as a company. You have laid out very specifically how one gets terminated in the company. Heck in some cases performance reviews do the same as they serve as the start to the discipline system in companies.

I've never worked for a company that didn't have progressive discipline.

So in short as the author says unless the manual and practice is only EEO statements and benefit and leave explanation you are unlikely to truly be an at will employer...no matter what you believe. It's why HR departments and company lawyers exist...so you hire and fire properly without getting the company in trouble. And it extends far beyond just your protected classes.

Also awarded damages can indeed be reinstatement of the job.

I appreciate that this is a late and thoroughly off-topic reply yet I feel compelled to lost it nevertheless:

This article regarding employment law in the United States is entirely unhelpful to you if you manage employees in Canada. Generally speaking, there is no "employment at will" in Canada like there is in the US (where employers may dismiss an employee without cause and without any notice [or without payment in lieu of notice.]) In Canada, an employer who dismisses an employee without cause must at least provide the statutory minimum notice period (or payment in lieu of).

Therefore, the article you posted has no relevance whatsoever to emoyment law in Canada.

That said, you are correct in the sense that it is prudent for employers in Canada to thoroughly document all employee misconduct because it improves the likelihood of one day proving "for cause" dismissal and avoiding paying damages for notice period. But the conclusion regarding progressive discipline is completely wrong: progressive discipline is a prudent policy for Canadian employers because it strengthens an eventual case for "for cause" dismissal in the future.

And lastly, you are incorrect regarding the authority of a Canadian court to order reinstatement of a dismissed employee (in the absence of a "just cause" clause in the contract.) It simply does not exist.

Your company really ought to reassess the labour relations advice it provided to its managers in Canada.

[Since1984]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Nice conclusion jumping without reading anything about it; his boss and another co-worker sat in back but were dropped off before his rant.

But great job blaming the victim, you're a superstar.

I really think this guy doesnt need any support. I understand that....yes things should have been handled when they happened....but honestly. If you are not this guy.....you should probably choose a better case to stick up for.

This behaviour is despicable and that is coming from someone who has had a 15 year drinking problem

[Minnie]

What in the blue haze are you talking about?

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Isn't he right, tough? I know you interact with law enforcement, and that's why I'm surprised as this post seems to be a little sarcastic.

I've always been told that pressing charges is an American thing, and that Canadians can't just decide to press or drop charges, it's not their call.

Can anyone else confirm?

I decided I'd look more into this as I was beginning to wonder if I had the process wrong or was misunderstanding it, and I sort-of did.

The victim complains to the police.

The police collect evidence and decide whether or not to present the case with recommended charges to the Crown

The Crown decides to proceed to trial or not, or take one of several other avenues.

If the Crown decides to go to trial, and the victim backs out, the Crown, now without a main witness, may decide to go a different way, or drop everything entirely (unless they feel it's in the public's best interest, as they don't like to force a witness/victim to testify).

So my original post of "Maybe the cabbie changed his mind" could hold water.

From a Calgary Sun article: "Dunn said Mounties initially, briefly charged his client with assault with a weapon and mischief following the incident but then withdrew them."

Which really does sound to me like the cabbie was pressured (or decided for himself he didn't want to face a possible trial) to drop out of the process. Since the cab company got $10,000, the cabbie got $900 and both got an apology, he may have felt pressured from some source or another to "let it go".

Without the cabbie testifying, it would be very difficult for the Crown to proceed with the case in the "public interest".

[Makarov]

Another possibility: diversion of charges to a direct accountability program (or whatever the similar program in Alberta might be called.) in the case of relatively minor charges and an accused with little or no criminal record, the Crown agrees to withdraw charges upon completion of agreed upon "direct accountability" measures such as apology to complainant, restitution, charitable donation, etc.

However, personally, i wouldn't see this case as a good candidate for diversion. That said, it's still possible that this is what happened.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Do so many of us identify more with the white guy in the business suit rather than the father of four who was victimized?

The case in questions was clearly assault. I'm okay with the guy losing his job.

However, I think we need to be careful about how far we go in sanctioning unpleasant attitudes. If every Canadian who hated minorities in general, or even middle-eastern immigrants in particular, lost their jobs tomorrow, our EI and social services systems would break under the strain. Ditto if everyone who believed homosexuality was immoral lost their jobs (a population that would include a large proportion of recent immigrants). And if every sexist - that is every man who uttered derogatory comments about women in general, or made offensive remarks to a woman based on her gender - lost his job, I suspect the members of this forum would suffer more job losses than the downturn in the energy industry has caused.

I'm not about to defend the d-bag in the OP. But I do think it's legitimate to raise concerns about how far we, as a society, go in sanctioning ugly (but not illegal) attitudes. We can get into some pretty murky territory. What if the management of a Canadian company based in the U.S. fired a Canadian employee over comments in social media (or caught on camera) calling Americans a bunch of idiots?