This is a provincial act as most of the employees, managers and even the owner of the gas station violate the prohibited reasons section. They violate this act because they are racist towards Simon, which is direct discrimination because he even says they would insult him and watch him talk racist comments, which is direct because they are clearly directing it at him and know he knows it, and the owner didn't want to hire him because of his ethnicity, which wasn't stated in the study, but what was said was that the owner didn't want to hire him until he had to beg, which doesn't actually violate any code because there is no evidence that this is the reason but it shows a lot of racism when Simon got to know him better meaning he didn't want to hire him because he was black and he thought blacks were the reason for the crime rate going up in the community. They also violated another act, mainly the shift manager act, and that is the Ontario Health and Safety Act, and they violated the right to know, because every worker has the right to know, which means they have the right to training , which Simon didn't really understand I got a quick overview. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay The owner did not have a justifiable reason to fire Simon because the owner's complaint to fire Simon would say something like he isn't working hard enough and doesn't know how to use the equipment, but that's not good and is not a reason sufficient as Simon has not received training on the equipment and machinery and has the right to know. So if he hadn't been given the training and if they had violated his rights, they shouldn't have fired him, even if it was him. Another reason why they can't really fire him for this reason is because they have no evidence that it was him because when he used it it worked fine, the blame shouldn't immediately fall on him and I think discrimination and racism play a big role in the fact that he was fired. If on the other hand they had not shown any signs of discrimination and racism and had proof that Simon broke the car and provided training, then they could have written to him and given him a warning. Some additional factors to be taken into consideration by the Canadian Human Rights Commission may include: They will consider the strategic implications of legal challenges, the reason I say this is because it says you need proof of jurisdiction to fire someone, and also that everyone is trained the same, which is in this case he was barely trained and only gave him a brief verbal description, and they didn't even have proof that he broke the car. Another factor that will take into consideration is forbidden motives and racism because as Simon says they talk about a lot of racist things and they look at it when they say it and even if they don't look at it if you say black people are the reason for the increased crime rate in the community is that you are targeting all black people and that includes your employees (Simon) which should not happen and is not legal. One of the last factors they could investigate is direct discrimination because in the interview the owner was racist and judged Simon based on his ethical appearance and didn't want to hire him for that until Simon convinced him to give him a chance. Even if she gave him a chance, what he did still falls under direct discrimination because she didn't want to hire him because he was.