Human Rights — Ontario Employment Law
Related Keywords
About Human Rights
Every worker in Ontario has the fundamental right to a workplace free from discrimination and harassment. This principle is not just a matter of good business practice; it is a legal requirement enshrined in Ontario's Human Rights Code (OHRC). The Code is a provincial law that protects people from discrimination and harassment in five specific social areas, with employment being one of the most critical. It aims to create a climate of understanding and mutual respect, ensuring everyone has an equal opportunity to earn a living and contribute to the workplace based on their skills and qualifications, not on stereotypes or prejudice.
The Code prohibits discrimination based on a set of protected 'grounds.' These include age, race, ancestry, creed (religion), sex (including pregnancy and gender identity), sexual orientation, family status, marital status, and disability, among others. This means an employer cannot refuse to hire, fire, or otherwise disadvantage an employee for reasons related to one of these grounds. The protection extends to every aspect of the employment relationship, from job postings and interviews to promotions, pay, and termination.
Discrimination can be obvious, such as a manager making a racist comment, but it can also be subtle or 'systemic.' This occurs when a seemingly neutral workplace policy or practice unintentionally disadvantages a group of people protected by the Code. For example, a requirement for all employees to be clean-shaven could discriminate against individuals whose religion requires them to have a beard. The Code also establishes a 'duty to accommodate' for employers. This means they must take steps to address the needs of employees related to a protected ground, such as a disability or religious observance, up to the point of 'undue hardship.' Understanding these core rights is the first step for any worker who feels they are being treated unfairly. Because the application of human rights law depends heavily on the specific facts of a situation, getting professional guidance can help clarify how these principles apply to your unique circumstances.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the 'protected grounds' under Ontario's Human Rights Code?
The protected grounds are personal characteristics that cannot be used as a basis for discrimination. They include race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status, and disability.
Is my employer allowed to ask about my religion or plans to have children in an interview?
No. Under the Ontario Human Rights Code, employers are generally prohibited from asking questions in an interview that relate to protected grounds, such as your religion, age, family status, or country of origin, as this could lead to discrimination.
What's the difference between harassment and discrimination?
Discrimination is broader and involves being treated unfairly because of a protected ground. Harassment is a form of discrimination and is defined under the Code as a course of vexatious comments or conduct that is known or ought to be known to be unwelcome.
How long do I have to file a human rights claim in Ontario?
You generally have one year from the date the incident of discrimination happened to file an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO). If there was a series of incidents, the one-year clock typically starts from the last incident.
My boss says our company is too small to be covered by the Human Rights Code. Is that true?
No, that is a common misconception. Unlike some sections of the Employment Standards Act, the Ontario Human Rights Code applies to all employers in Ontario, regardless of how many employees they have.
I think my human rights were violated at work. What's the first thing I should do?
The first step is to document everything in writing: the date, time, location, what happened, who was involved, and any witnesses. Then, review your employer's internal human rights or harassment policy to see the recommended steps for reporting the issue.
When does a human rights issue at work become a legal case requiring a lawyer?
If your employer dismisses your internal complaint, retaliates against you for raising the issue, or if the discrimination leads to your termination or a significant negative change in your job, it's crucial to consult an employment lawyer. They can help you understand your options, including filing with the HRTO or pursuing a civil claim for wrongful dismissal with a human rights component.
Common Scenarios
- An employee is consistently overlooked for a promotion that goes to younger, less-qualified colleagues, and management makes frequent jokes about them 'nearing retirement'.
- A worker with a newly diagnosed chronic illness requests a modified work schedule as recommended by their doctor, but their manager denies the request without explanation.
- A company's social events always revolve around alcohol, making an employee who abstains for religious reasons feel excluded and unable to network with senior leaders.
- An employee is terminated shortly after informing their manager that they are pregnant and will be taking maternity leave.
- A racialized employee is assigned to less desirable tasks and shifts compared to their white colleagues, despite having the same seniority and performance record.
What You Should Know
- Keep a detailed, confidential journal of any incidents you believe are discriminatory, including dates, times, witnesses, and direct quotes if possible.
- Formally report the discriminatory behaviour in writing to your manager or HR department, referencing the company's own policies if they exist. This creates a paper trail.
- Remember that you are protected from retaliation. It is illegal for your employer to punish you for raising a legitimate human rights concern in good faith.
- Be aware of the strict one-year deadline to file an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario from the last discriminatory act.
- If the discrimination has resulted in your termination or a poisoned work environment, consult with an employment lawyer to explore all your legal avenues, which may include remedies under both the Human Rights Code and common law.
Featured Cases
Jean-Marie Dixon v. The King (Ontario)
2025 ONSC 5828 (CanLII) · 2025-10-17Systemic Racism and Misogynoir in the Workplace: Legal Challenges
A court case involving systemic racism and misogynoir claims in the workplace. The court addressed jurisdiction, workplace safety, civil procedure, and human rights law in relation to these claims. The court found that systemic discrimination claims may fall outside the scope of arbitration agreements and human rights law, and recognized the potential for a novel tort but required further evidence.
Silliphant v. Eastern Ontario Regional Laboratories
2024 ONSC 6363 (CanLII) · 2024-11-18Wrongful Dismissal: Jurisdictional Dispute Over Employment Termination
A jurisdictional dispute over the termination of employment and wrongful dismissal, involving human rights grievances and the application of specific legal rules and precedents.
McGraw v. Southgate (Township)
2021 ONSC 7000 (CanLII) · 2021-10-20Wrongful Dismissal and Gender-Based Discrimination: McGraw v. Southgate (Township)
A wrongful dismissal case involving a plaintiff terminated from dual roles due to unfounded sexist allegations. The court determined the appropriate notice period and awarded moral damages for mental distress, as well as damages for gender-based discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The case also addressed defamatory statements and punitive damages for the employer's discriminatory and reckless conduct.
Ronald Dawson v Colt Food Services Limited
2016 ONSC 7653 (CanLII) · 2016-12-07Wrongful Dismissal and Human Rights Claims: Resignation or Termination Determination
A wrongful dismissal case where the court must determine whether the plaintiff's employment was terminated or voluntarily ended. The case also involves human rights claims related to age and disability discrimination, and the appropriateness of summary judgment. The court must apply common law principles and the Hryniak v. Mauldin framework to decide the matter.
Partridge v. Botony Dental Corporation
2015 ONSC 343 (CanLII) · 2015-01-19Wrongful Dismissal and Discrimination: 12 Months' Notice and $20,000 Awarded
A wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff, terminated after maternity leave, was awarded 12 months' notice. The court also found discrimination against the plaintiff based on family status, awarding $20,000 for injury to dignity. The employer failed to reinstate the plaintiff and was found to have breached statutory obligations under the Employment Standards Act. The counterclaim was dismissed, and prejudgment interest was awarded.
Draganjac v. Equity Financial Trust Company
2014 ONSC 5585 (CanLII) · 2014-09-26Wrongful Dismissal and Unpaid Commissions: Court Ruling
A wrongful dismissal case where the court determined that the holding company was not the plaintiff's employer and dismissed the claim. The court also addressed reasonable notice, disability discrimination, and unpaid commissions, granting partial judgment for unpaid commissions.
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.
Power Tax v. Millar, DioGuardi
2013 ONSC 135 (CanLII) · 2013-01-07Workplace Discrimination: Court Stays Employer's Application Due to Abuse of Process
A civil procedure case where an employer's application to declare termination of an employee's employment for valid business reasons was stayed due to potential abuse of process. The court also considered whether the Human Rights Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine valid business reasons for termination, involving allegations of discrimination based on sex and maternity leave.
Al-Dandachi v. SNC-Lavalin Inc.
2012 ONSC 6534 (CanLII) · 2012-11-19Wrongful Dismissal: Human Rights Claim Based on Religious Beliefs and Place of Origin
A wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff alleged termination was linked to his religious beliefs and place of origin, contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code. The court considered whether the claim could be struck and applied the Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. test. The court also addressed the defendant's motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's amended statement of claim as irrelevant.
Mykki Cavic v. Costco wholesale Canada Limited
2012 ONSC 5307 (CanLII) · 2012-10-01Termination for Cause: Falsification of Benefits Claims and Human Rights
A termination for cause case involving a managerial employee who was accused of falsifying medical benefits claims. The court found just cause for termination and dismissed claims for bad faith, punitive damages, and human rights violations. Supervisors' conduct was not found to meet the harassment threshold under the Ontario Human Rights Code.
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.
Schmidt v. Elko Properties Ltd.
2005 CanLII 63776 (ON SC) · 2005-10-26Workplace Discrimination Case: Stay of Proceedings Granted
A human rights discrimination case where the court granted a stay of proceedings. The dispute involves allegations of discrimination in the workplace.
York Advertising Ltd. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission)
2004 CanLII 58230 (ON SC) · 2004-03-11Human Rights Tribunal Review: Non-Parties Challenge Procedural Fairness
A judicial review case concerning a human rights tribunal decision that found gender-based discrimination and harassment in the workplace. The applicants, who were not parties to the hearing, argue they have standing to seek judicial review due to procedural unfairness and potential reputational and financial harm. The court is considering whether urgency justifies a single judge hearing and whether interim relief should be granted to prevent further dissemination of the tribunal’s decision.
Jones v. Amway of Canada Ltd.
2002 CanLII 78246 (ON SC) · 2002-04-19Human Rights Employment: Termination Reprisal Under Ontario Code
A human rights employment case where the plaintiff alleged that their termination constituted reprisal under section 8 of the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Board of Inquiry found no reprisal, and the court upheld this decision as reasonable, applying the standards of review to the Board's factual and legal findings.
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.
Patel v. Ontario (Human Rights Comm.)
2001 CanLII 61055 (ON SC) · 2001-01-26Human Rights Judicial Review Case in Ontario
A human rights case involving judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
Payne v. Ontario (Human Rights Board of Inquiry) (No. 2)
2000 CanLII 49376 (ON SC) · 2000-05-31Human Rights Jurisdiction Case: Ontario Board of Inquiry
A human rights case involving the jurisdiction of the Ontario Human Rights Board of Inquiry.
Joncas v. Spruce Falls Power & Paper Co.
2000 CanLII 22359 (ON SC) · 2000-05-15Human Rights Discrimination: Long-Term Disability Employees Excluded from Shares
A human rights discrimination case involving employees on long-term disability who were excluded from receiving Class 3 shares during a corporate reorganization. The court found that the exclusion was based on time absent, not disability, and no evidence of intentional or systemic discrimination was presented.
Ontario (Human Rights Comm. v. O.T.F. (No.2)
1995 CanLII 7432 (ON SC) · 1995-06-21Human Rights: Compulsory Union Membership for Female Teachers
A human rights case involving female elementary school teachers who were required to join a single-gender affiliate of the Ontario Teachers' Federation under By-law 1. The case examines whether this compulsory membership violates the Ontario Human Rights Code, particularly section 6, and whether the by-law qualifies as a 'special program' under section 14(1) that may be exempt from discrimination claims.
Nishimura v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) (Div. Ct.)
1989 CanLII 4317 (ON SC) · 1989-10-13Human Rights: Ontario Commission Has Jurisdiction Over Equal Pay Complaints
A human rights case involving female-dominated inside advertising salespersons who alleged sex-based wage discrimination compared to male-dominated outside salespersons. The Ontario Human Rights Commission initially declined jurisdiction but later admitted error, and the court ruled that the Commission does have jurisdiction to address such complaints under the Ontario Human Rights Code.