IRCC's own DEI evidence couldn't prove discrimination
On January 27, 2026, a federal adjudicator dismissed a racial discrimination complaint against one of Canada's largest government departments, even if taking judicial notice of the existence of anti-Black discrimination as a broader societal issue. Goretti Fukamusenge, a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board, ruled that Yonita Parkes, who identifies as being of "Afro-South American descent," failed to prove her race played any role when Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) used a non-advertised appointment process to fill a Senior Immigration Officer acting position — a complaint brought under s. 77(1)(b) of the Public Service Employment Act.
Parkes worked in IRCC's Reviews and Interventions Unit, where a Senior Immigration Officer acting position at the PM-04 group and level was filled through a non-advertised process, covering the period April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2023. The appointee had originally been evaluated against essential qualifications in 2011 through an advertised process and placed in a fully assessed pool of qualified candidates.
When that earlier process expired, IRCC extended the appointment rather than running a new competitive process. Training a new SIO takes between 8 and 12 months; the appointee had completed all the training and was described as "a very high producer."
Parkes argued that using a non-advertised process while an open advertised inventory existed was an abuse of authority, and that her exclusion was linked to her race, colour, and national or ethnic origin, in contravention of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The DEI data that couldn't cross the legal threshold
To support her claim, Parkes presented evidence including a 2023 Pollara research report on anti-racism at IRCC presented at a town hall, focus group summaries from the Black Employee Network, public service employee survey results, and union submissions on staffing in the federal public service.
The Board found none of it admissible. The evidence had no direct connection to the specific appointment decision under review. As the decision stated, "there is no sufficient nexus between her complaint and the evidence that she presented."
The Board also found that Parkes had missed the application deadline for the SIO inventory. She submitted her application on November 26, 2019, at 11:59:41 p.m., after the last pull had already occurred at 8:58 a.m. that same day, despite having received three separate reminders.
The Board's standard on discretion and evidence
The Board accepted that Parkes holds a protected characteristic and was not considered for the position, meeting the first two elements of its three-part discrimination test. The complaint failed at the third: showing a link between the adverse impact and the protected ground. "Apart from general allegations of differential treatment and systemic discrimination, there is no evidence to establish that the complainant's race, colour, or ethnicity was a factor in the respondent's decision to use the non-advertised staffing process."
Fukamusenge clarified that her decision "should not be interpreted as a denial of the potential systemic discrimination within the respondent's organization or the federal public service in general but rather as a reflection of the limitations of the complaint as made, the lack of relevance in the evidence presented, and the Board's jurisdiction."
The ruling confirmed that, under the Public Service Employment Act, delegated managers have the discretion to use either an advertised or a non-advertised process, and that "on its own, proceeding by a non-advertised process does not equate to abuse of authority or discrimination."
See Parkes v. Deputy Head (Department of Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FPSLREB 7
