We present counterfactual situation testing (CST), a causal data mining framework for detecting discrimination in classifiers. CST aims to answer in an actionable and meaningful way the intuitive question "what would have been the model outcome had the individual, or complainant, been of a different protected status?" It extends the legally-grounded situation testing of Thanh et al. (2011) by operationalizing the notion of fairness given the difference using counterfactual reasoning. For any complainant, we find and compare similar protected and non-protected instances in the dataset used by the classifier to construct a control and test group, where a difference between the decision outcomes of the two groups implies potential individual discrimination. Unlike situation testing, which builds both groups around the complainant, we build the test group on the complainant's counterfactual generated using causal knowledge. The counterfactual is intended to reflect how the protected attribute when changed affects the seemingly neutral attributes used by the classifier, which is taken for granted in many frameworks for discrimination. Under CST, we compare similar individuals within each group but dissimilar individuals across both groups due to the possible difference between the complainant and its counterfactual. Evaluating our framework on two classification scenarios, we show that it uncovers a greater number of cases than situation testing, even when the classifier satisfies the counterfactual fairness condition of Kusner et al. (2017).