Published on March 09, 2026
Hiring discrimination is a reality that affects many job applicants in Quebec. Indeed, some employers ask inappropriate questions during interviews. In addition, they may reject candidates on illegal grounds. Fortunately, the law protects job seekers against these practices. Thus, concrete remedies exist to obtain compensation. Our firm assists victims of hiring discrimination in their legal steps. We provide personalized legal support to defend your rights.
Learn more
Hiring is a crucial step in accessing income. Indeed, everyone’s financial security depends on the job market. However, this market is accessible only after an interview and a selection process.
The law guarantees the right to equality in this process. Otherwise, as we will see, some individuals would be left behind. Consequently, legal remedies exist for people who have been discriminated against. They can therefore assert their rights before the courts.
The Quebec Charter and hiring discrimination
In Quebec, it is mainly the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms that protects job applicants from discrimination. In this regard, its key provisions notably provide that :
Section 16. No one may practice discrimination in hiring […].
In addition, section 18.1 regulates the questions asked during an interview. Concretely, no one may request certain information during an interview. Indeed, this information concerns the protected grounds listed in section 10. However, an exception exists if the information is relevant under section 20. The same applies to an existing equal access program.
Furthermore, section 10 lists the prohibited grounds of discrimination. Among these are race, colour and sex. Gender identity, pregnancy and sexual orientation are also protected. Likewise, civil status, age and religion are covered grounds. Finally, language, ethnic origin and disability complete this list.
Exceptions provided by law
Exceptions to this rule exist when the distinction, exclusion or preference is based on “the aptitudes or qualifications required for a job, or justified by the charitable, philanthropic, religious, political or educational nature of a non-profit institution or one devoted exclusively to the well-being of an ethnic group.” (Charter, section 20)
Proof of hiring discrimination
When faced with such discriminatory acts, a job seeker may obtain compensation. Nevertheless, the candidate must meet their burden of proof. In practice, courts confirm that these practices can be costly for employers.
The burden of proof in question is the same as that required to demonstrate discrimination. In a hiring discrimination case, the following three elements must therefore be established on a balance of probabilities :
- Proof that a distinction, exclusion or preference occurred during the hiring process;
- That this distinction, exclusion or preference is based on one of the grounds listed in the first paragraph of section 20 of the Charter;
- That this distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of nullifying or impairing the right to full equality in hiring as provided by section 16 of the Charter.
Decisions illustrating the consequences
For example, the decision Kerdougli v. La Vie en Rose inc., 2018 QCTDP 8 (CanLII) is revealing. In this case, the Human Rights Tribunal rendered its decision. Thus, the employer was ordered to pay $5,000 in moral damages. The Tribunal recognized that the questions asked during the interview about the applicant’s ethnic or national origin constituted discrimination.
In this case, the plaintiff alleged that he had been the victim of hiring discrimination. More specifically, this discrimination was based on his ethnic origin. Indeed, the human resources employee questioned Mr. Kerdougli about the origin of his name.
As a defence, the employer argued that the employee already suspected his Maghreb origin. In addition, she wanted to verify her hypothesis. Indeed, La Vie en Rose had business partners in that region.
However, the judge noted that no evidence had been presented by the defendant. Thus, the Tribunal could not understand how this constituted a real advantage. The question was therefore not justifiable.
Furthermore, in the decision Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (M. P.) v. Wal-Mart Canada Stores inc., 2003 CanLII 24566 (QC TDP), the consequences were even more significant. Indeed, it was another case of hiring discrimination. The employer was not only ordered to pay moral damages. In addition, punitive damages were awarded under section 49.1 of the Charter. Material damages for loss of salary were also granted.