Discrimination — Ontario Employment Law
Related Keywords
About Discrimination
Discrimination in the workplace is not just about unfair treatment; it's about being treated differently because of a personal characteristic protected by law. In Ontario, the primary legislation governing this is the Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC). This Code prohibits discrimination in employment based on specific 'protected grounds,' which include race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status, and disability.
Legally, discrimination can manifest in two main ways. The first is 'direct discrimination,' which is often obvious. An example would be an employer explicitly stating they won't hire someone because of their age or refusing a promotion to a woman because they assume she will soon have children. The second, and often more common, type is 'adverse effect' or 'constructive' discrimination. This occurs when an employer implements a seemingly neutral rule or policy that unintentionally disadvantages individuals from a protected group. For instance, a company policy requiring all employees to work on Saturdays could discriminate against employees whose religion observes a Saturday Sabbath.
To establish a case of discrimination, an employee typically needs to show a 'prima facie' case. This means presenting evidence that, on its face, suggests three things: 1) they are part of a group protected by the OHRC; 2) they experienced adverse treatment in their employment; and 3) their protected characteristic was a factor in that adverse treatment. It doesn't have to be the only factor, just one of them. Once this is shown, the burden shifts to the employer to provide a non-discriminatory explanation.
It's important to understand that discrimination claims can be pursued in two main ways in Ontario: through an application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) or as part of a civil lawsuit in court, often connected to a wrongful dismissal claim. As seen in many court cases, a termination or constructive dismissal may be rooted in discriminatory conduct, leading to additional damages. Navigating which path to take is complex, and the best strategy depends entirely on the specific details of your situation, making early legal guidance invaluable.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the legal difference between being treated unfairly and being discriminated against?
Unfair treatment, like having a difficult boss, is not illegal on its own. For treatment to be legally considered discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code, it must be linked to one of the protected grounds, such as your age, race, disability, or gender. The connection to a protected ground is the key difference.
Can I sue my employer for discrimination in court instead of going to the Human Rights Tribunal?
Yes, in Ontario you can include a claim for discrimination as part of a civil lawsuit, such as one for wrongful dismissal. This allows the court to award damages for the human rights breach in addition to any termination-related entitlements. Choosing between court and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) has significant legal implications.
What is the time limit for filing a discrimination claim in Ontario?
You generally have one year from the date of the last discriminatory incident to file an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO). If you are pursuing the claim in civil court as part of a lawsuit, the standard limitation period is two years.
How can I prove discrimination if my employer never admitted their bias?
Direct evidence of discrimination is rare. Claims are often proven through circumstantial evidence, such as showing a pattern of negative treatment that began after you disclosed a disability, a suspicious timing of your termination, or comparing your treatment to that of colleagues who do not share your protected characteristic.
My boss is equally rude to everyone. Is this considered discrimination?
Generally, no. If a manager's poor behaviour is not connected to a protected ground under the Ontario Human Rights Code and is applied to all employees, it is likely not discrimination. It may, however, contribute to a toxic work environment that could potentially lead to a constructive dismissal claim.
What are the protected grounds for discrimination in Ontario employment?
The Ontario Human Rights Code protects against discrimination based on race, ancestry, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status, and disability.
When should I consult an employment lawyer about potential discrimination?
You should consider consulting a lawyer as soon as you suspect a negative employment action—like a demotion, denial of promotion, or termination—is connected to a protected personal characteristic. A lawyer can help you understand your rights, the different legal avenues available, and the critical deadlines that apply.
Common Scenarios
- An employee who recently returned from a medical leave for a mental health disability is the first person selected for layoff during a restructuring, despite having more seniority than others.
- A retail manager consistently schedules an employee with young children for last-minute evening shifts after they requested a more stable schedule to accommodate childcare needs.
- During a job interview, a candidate is asked questions about their country of origin and whether they plan on having children.
- An older, long-serving employee is terminated and told the company is 'moving in a new, more dynamic direction,' while their duties are absorbed by younger, recent hires.
- An employee is subjected to persistent jokes and derogatory comments about their sexual orientation from colleagues, and management dismisses it as 'just locker-room talk'.
What You Should Know
- Keep a detailed, confidential journal of all incidents of suspected discrimination. Note the date, time, location, individuals involved, and exactly what was said or done.
- Preserve any relevant documents, such as emails, text messages, performance reviews, or company policies, that could serve as evidence of discriminatory treatment.
- Familiarize yourself with the protected grounds under the Ontario Human Rights Code to assess whether your situation falls under its protection.
- Be mindful of the strict deadlines: you have one year to file with the Human Rights Tribunal and two years to start a civil lawsuit. Missing these deadlines can extinguish your right to a remedy.
- Consult with an employment lawyer to determine the best legal strategy. They can advise on whether to proceed through the Human Rights Tribunal or as part of a civil court action for wrongful dismissal.
Featured Cases
Osmani v. Universal Structural Restorations Ltd.
2022 ONSC 6979 (CanLII) · 2022-12-09Constructive Dismissal and Workplace Harassment: Damages Awarded
A constructive dismissal case where an employee resigned due to an abusive workplace environment, including harassment and unsafe conditions. The court found the employer failed to address these issues, leading to damages for wrongful dismissal, including aggravated and punitive damages. The case also involved battery and assault claims, human rights violations, and unpaid wages. The human trafficking claim was dismissed.
Currie v. Nylene Canada Inc.
2021 ONSC 1922 (CanLII) · 2021-03-1639-Year Employee Awarded 26 Months Notice After Termination
A 39-year employee was terminated without cause and awarded 26 months' notice due to exceptional circumstances. The court also dismissed a discrimination claim based on sex, finding no prima facie case.
Mohammed v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
2019 ONSC 532 (CanLII) · 2019-02-07Workplace Discrimination and Constructive Dismissal Case
A case involving claims of constructive dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and discrimination due to harassment and reprisals in the workplace. The court ruled on the sufficiency of the pleadings and granted leave to amend the statement of claim. Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants.
Caldwell v. The Peace Naturals Project Inc.
2018 ONSC 3065 (CanLII) · 2018-05-15Wrongful Dismissal and Discrimination: Romantic Relationship with CEO
A wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff alleged termination due to a romantic relationship with the CEO, which was challenged by the defendant. The court ruled on the interpretation of 'marital status' and 'family status' under the Human Rights Code, granting and denying motions to strike claims, and granting leave to amend pleadings. No costs were awarded due to minor prejudice.
David Peidl v. Linamar Corporation
2018 ONSC 241 (CanLII) · 2018-01-26Discrimination and Wrongful Dismissal: HRTO Withdrawal and Civil Court
A wrongful dismissal case involving disability discrimination. The court considered whether the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s decision to allow the withdrawal of the application with prejudice precludes the plaintiff from pursuing the discrimination claim in civil court. The case also addressed issues of issue estoppel, abuse of process, and the choice of forum under the Human Rights Code.
Doherty v 1763952 Ontario Inc. (K4 Integration Inc.)
2016 ONSC 7159 (CanLII) · 2016-11-17Age Discrimination in Wrongful Dismissal Case
A wrongful dismissal case involving age discrimination. The court is considering the application of Civil Procedure rules related to the claim.
Williams v Vogel of Canada
2016 ONSC 342 (CanLII) · 2016-01-2632-Year Employee Wrongfully Dismissed: 23 Months' Notice Awarded
A wrongful dismissal case where an employee with 32 years of service was terminated without cause. The court determined the employee was wrongfully dismissed and awarded 23 months' notice. The case also addressed the admissibility of discovery evidence, discrimination based on disability and age, and the non-award of aggravated or punitive damages. The court also considered limitation periods for claims.
Wilson v. Solis Mexican Foods Inc.
2013 ONSC 5799 (CanLII) · 2013-09-12Wrongful Dismissal and Disability Discrimination: $20,000 Awarded
A wrongful dismissal case where a plaintiff was terminated after 16.5 months of employment. The court applied Bardal factors to determine the appropriate notice period and found the defendant's conduct to be discriminatory, awarding $20,000 for loss of the right to be free from discrimination.
King v. The Regional Municipality of Peel
2012 ONSC 1730 (CanLII) · 2012-04-24Wrongful Termination and Discrimination Case in Peel Region
A wrongful termination case where the court determined that the plaintiff was not wrongfully dismissed but was entitled to two weeks' pay in lieu of notice. The case also involved allegations of discrimination based on place of origin and pregnancy, which were found insufficient.
Hudson v. Linamar Corporation
2010 ONSC 7248 (CanLII) · 2010-12-31Wrongful Dismissal: Disability Discrimination Allegations Allowed to Stand
A wrongful dismissal case involving allegations of discriminatory termination due to an unwritten policy targeting employees with disabilities. The court allowed the plaintiff's pleadings to stand, finding the allegations relevant and probative, and awarded costs to the plaintiff.
Andrachuk v. Bell Globe Media Publishing Inc.
2009 CanLII 3974 (ON SC) · 2009-02-04Wrongful Dismissal: Pregnancy Leave Reprisal Case
A wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff was terminated shortly after declaring her intention to take maternity leave. The plaintiff alleges reprisal under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and claims of fraudulent concealment and sham reorganization. The case also addresses whether the action is statute-barred under the Limitation Act, 2002, and whether discrimination can be pleaded as an independent actionable wrong.
Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General)
2005 CanLII 47783 (ON SC) · 2005-12-23Employment Insurance and SAWP Workers: Charter Discrimination Case
A case involving the application of the Employment Insurance Act to SAWP workers, who are required to pay EI premiums but cannot access regular benefits. The court examined whether this differential treatment violates section 15 of the Charter and whether the UFCW has public interest standing to challenge the policy. The motion to strike was dismissed as the application raised justiciable issues.
Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Comm.) (No. 5)
2002 CanLII 78247 (ON SC) · 2002-01-02Human Rights Employment Case: Sex Discrimination Claim
A human rights case involving allegations of sex discrimination. The case was heard in the context of employment-related discrimination.
Ferrell v. Ontario (Attorney General)
1997 CanLII 12351 (ON SC) · 1997-07-09Employment Equity Repeal and Section 15 Charter Violation
A case involving the repeal of the Employment Equity Act, 1993, and whether it violated section 15 of the Charter by creating a discriminatory environment. The courts ruled that the repeal did not violate the Charter as it restored the pre-existing legal framework.
Schafer v. Canada (Attorney General)
1996 CanLII 8150 (ON SC) · 1996-05-31Unemployment Insurance Discrimination: Adoptive Parents Receive Fewer Benefits
A case addressing whether provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act that provide unequal benefits to adoptive parents compared to biological parents violate section 15(1) of the Charter. The court found the discriminatory provisions not justified under section 1 of the Charter and issued a declaration of invalidity for the affected sections.
Saraga v. Wellington (County) Board of Education
1995 CanLII 7280 (ON SC) · 1995-06-09Wrongful Dismissal and Charter Violations in Employment Context
A wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff alleged violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sections 7 and 15, based on discrimination and procedural fairness. The defendant argued the court lacked jurisdiction due to the collective agreement's grievance procedures. The court ruled that civil courts retain jurisdiction over Charter claims even with a collective agreement in place.
Re Ontario Human Rights Commission et al. and Chrysalis Restaurant Enterprises Inc. et al.
1987 CanLII 4277 (ON SC) · 1987-09-29Human Rights Discrimination Case: Sex-Based Claims Under Ontario Code
A human rights case involving allegations of sex discrimination under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1980, c. 340, s. 4(1), (4), (6).
Ghosh v. Domglas Inc.
1986 CanLII 2590 (ON SC) · 1986-11-25Wrongful Dismissal and Discrimination: Stay of Proceedings in Employment Case
A wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff alleged discrimination based on race, ethnic origin, place of origin, colour, and handicap, and also claimed constructive dismissal due to being placed on long-term disability. The defendant sought a stay of the civil action to avoid conflicting findings and double recovery, raising questions about the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Code and the appropriate forum for employment discrimination claims.
Shaw et al. v. McLeod et al.
1982 CanLII 2140 (ON SC) · 1982-03-10Union Officers and Fair Representation: Discrimination and Liability in Labour Disputes
A labour and employment case involving allegations of discriminatory and bad faith conduct by union officers, including questions of individual liability for unfair collective agreement negotiations and whether statutory exclusions preclude common law relief for unfair representation.
Ontario Human Rights Commission et al. v. Simpson-Sears Ltd.
1982 CanLII 2255 (ON SC) · 1982-03-02Religious Accommodation Case: Employer Not Required to Accommodate Seventh Day Adventist Employee
A human rights case involving a Seventh Day Adventist employee who was reduced to part-time status due to their inability to work on Saturdays for religious reasons. The court examined whether the Ontario Human Rights Code imposes a duty on employers to accommodate religious practices and whether discriminatory intent is required to establish a contravention of section 4(1)(g). The employer's actions were found not to contravene the Code as they acted for legitimate business reasons and no discriminatory intent was established.