The tribunal committed errors in assessing a pattern of discrimination: court
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ordered a rehearing of a workplace discrimination case, finding that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) failed to properly assess whether repeated actions by the applicant's manager formed a continuous pattern of discrimination that could extend the limitations period.
The applicant, who alleged workplace discrimination based on race, ethnic origin, age, and reprisal, had filed a complaint with the HRTO. The allegations included claims of derogatory remarks, a hostile work environment, and discriminatory practices that prevented the applicant from securing a permanent position. The applicant also claimed that reprisals followed attempts to exercise rights protected under the Human Rights Code.
The HRTO dismissed the case, finding the allegations either untimely or unsupported by evidence linking the events to protected grounds under the code. The tribunal concluded that most of the incidents occurred more than a year before the filing of the complaint and were not part of a series of connected discriminatory acts. The tribunal also denied the applicant's request to reconsider the decision.
The Superior Court reviewed the matter and found significant issues with the tribunal's case handling. The court determined that the tribunal misapplied legal principles when it assessed whether the alleged incidents constituted a continuous series of discriminatory actions. According to the court, the tribunal failed to properly consider how repeated actions by the same manager over the applicant's employment period could establish a pattern of discrimination, potentially extending the limitations period.
The court also identified procedural unfairness during the tribunal's preliminary hearing process. The applicant was restricted from presenting arguments regarding evidence that could support the claims at a merits hearing despite the tribunal's directions allowing for such submissions. This limitation, the court concluded, prevented the applicant from effectively responding to the respondent's claims and undermined the fairness of the hearing.
In addition to these procedural concerns, the court noted that the tribunal's decisions lacked sufficient reasoning to explain the conclusions reached. Specifically, the tribunal did not adequately address the evidence presented in the application, such as allegations of discriminatory remarks and hostile treatment by colleagues and supervisors.
Based on these findings, the Superior Court set aside the HRTO's decisions and directed that a different adjudicator rehear the matter. The case will now return to the tribunal for a new preliminary hearing, during which the applicant will have the opportunity to present their claims fully.
