Racial profiling: Montreal acknowledges it…, but doesn't believe the victims
Alain Babineau ·
At its core, the question is simple: when a court recognizes that a system causes harm to an entire group, can we seriously ask each person to prove that they suffered from it?
While the courts have recognized the systemic nature of racial profiling in Montreal, the City is now asking victims to come forward, one by one, to prove what they experienced. A position that raises a fundamental question: are we truly seeking to repair injustice... or to limit its consequences?
The Lamontagne v. City of Montreal case should mark a turning point in the fight against racial profiling. Instead, it highlights a troubling reality: a system that acknowledges its failings... while refusing to fully assume the consequences.
In 2024, the Quebec Superior Court was unequivocal. It concluded that racial profiling practiced by the SPVM is systemic. Not accidental. Not marginal. Systemic. And yet, today, the City of Montreal is contesting.
Placing the burden on victims
Before the Court of Appeal, the City maintains that each person will have to prove individually that they were a victim of racial profiling. In other words: even after judicial recognition of the problem, victims should return to court, one by one, to recount — and justify — what they experienced. This is a complete reversal of the very meaning of class actions.
The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled
• Class actions are not meant to multiply individual trials, but to address common injustices together.
• It is not necessary for each victim to testify.
• It is not necessary for all situations to be identical.
What the City is asking for today goes directly against these principles: Dismantling class actions, one testimony at a time
Class actions are based on three fundamental objectives:
-
ensure genuine access to justice;
-
avoid multiplication of trials;
-
guarantee institutional accountability
Requiring individual testimonies weakens all three pillars simultaneously.
-
It makes justice less accessible.
-
It unnecessarily burdens the judicial system.
-
And most importantly, it dilutes collective responsibility into a series of isolated cases.
Organized revictimization
But beyond the law, we must call things clearly. Forcing each racialized person to testify means compelling them to relive an experience often marked by humiliation, fear and injustice.
It exposes them to cross-examinations where their word will be questioned. This is not just a procedure. This is revictimization. And it is difficult not to see a strategy here: fragmenting systemic injustice into a series of individual ordeals, until exhaustion.
How far is the City prepared to go?
Another question arises. Does the City of Montreal intend to push this case all the way to the Supreme Court, as the Quebec government did in the Luamba case? And above all: at what cost?
Because behind this legal battle, there is a political choice. That of spending taxpayers' money to finance years of proceedings and lawyers' fees... rather than compensating Black citizens who were victims of practices recognized as discriminatory.
The change in municipal administration has changed nothing about this stance. And that speaks volumes.
A troubling double discourse
The City claims to recognize racial profiling. But in practice, it acts as if this reality must be proven individually, again and again. We recognize the system... but we demand individual proof. We admit the wrong... but we complicate the repair. This double discourse allows preserving an appearance of responsibility while limiting its consequences.
Going beyond compensation
In this case, I would have wished the class action went further. Compensation is important. It acknowledges a wrong. But it is not enough.
Racial profiling is systemic, and the response must be as well. This implies questioning the practices themselves — particularly police stops that disproportionately affect Black and racialized people.
Repairing is not just compensating. It is transforming. The Court of Appeal's decision will have major repercussions.
If it sides with the City, it will send a dangerous message: even systemic injustices will have to be proven individually.
If it confirms the initial judgment, it will affirm that the law can recognize — and repair — collective realities. Refusing to look away. At heart, the question is simple: when a court recognizes that a system causes harm to an entire group, can we seriously ask each person to prove they suffered from it?
For me, the answer is no. Because justice should not become another space where victims must fight to be believed. Because dignity should never depend on cross-examination.
And because a system that acknowledges its wrongs without assuming the consequences is not changing. It is protecting itself.
Relevant jurisprudence
• Lamontagne v. City of Montreal, Q.S. Quebec, 2024 • Hollick v. Toronto (City), 2001 SCC 68 • Vivendi Canada Inc. v. Dell'Aniello, 2014 SCC 1 • Luamba v. Attorney General of Quebec, 2022 QCCS 3866