He alleged that the university engaged in discriminatory and retaliatory actions against him
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed a former University of Windsor employee to amend his lawsuit to include human rights violations after the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) dismissed his complaints for a "substantial overlap" of claims already raised in his civil case.
The plaintiff, a former senior associate dean, sought to amend his statement of claim to include human rights violations he had previously raised in three separate complaints before the HRTO.
The plaintiff worked at the university from 2012 to 2018. After unsuccessfully applying for a dean position in 2016, he alleged that the university engaged in discriminatory and retaliatory actions against him, including racial profiling and suspension. He initiated a civil action in 2018, seeking $4.5 million in damages for harassment, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional suffering, breach of contract, and other claims.
Simultaneously, he filed three separate complaints before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) in 2017, 2019, and 2022, alleging discrimination based on race, ancestry, and ethnic origin. In January 2024, the HRTO dismissed all three complaints, ruling they duplicated his civil lawsuit. The tribunal found "substantial overlap" in the allegations and concluded it would be procedurally unfair for the university to defend the same claims in two forums.
Following the HRTO's dismissal, the plaintiff moved to amend his civil claim to explicitly include human rights violations under Ontario's Human Rights Code. Despite previously arguing before the HRTO that the civil case was the appropriate forum for all claims, the university opposed the amendments, citing expired limitation periods and alleged prejudice.
The court rejected the university's argument, ruling that the amendments did not introduce new causes of action but rather additional remedies arising from the same facts. The court emphasized that the university consistently argued that the HRTO claims and civil lawsuit shared the same facts, making it unfair to block the plaintiff from consolidating them into one proceeding.
"The amendments merely introduce new proposed remedies arising out of the same factual situation," the court said. "This does not give rise to a limitation defence, so the claim of prejudice has no merit."
However, the court required the plaintiff to revise his amended claim to comply with procedural rules, as the proposed version contained excessive underlining, struck-through text, and improper pleading of evidence.
The lawsuit, which has been ongoing for nearly seven years, has resulted in significant legal expenses for both parties. The court encouraged the parties to seek a resolution before proceeding with further costly litigation. "It seems to me that this case cries out for a resolution of some kind that will stop the bleeding and bring it to a quick end," the court concluded.
