Human Rights Code — Ontario Employment Law
Related Keywords
About Human Rights Code
The Human Rights Code is the foundational provincial statute in Ontario that protects individuals from discrimination and harassment in five social areas, with employment being one of the most heavily litigated. Unlike the Employment Standards Act, which sets minimum rules for wages and hours, the Code deals with fundamental equity. It prohibits adverse treatment in the workplace based on protected grounds such as disability, race, sex, age, sexual orientation, and family status. Importantly, the Code has quasi-constitutional status, meaning it overrides most other provincial laws and employment contracts. You cannot legally sign away your primary rights under the Code.
Historically, workers who suffered a breach of the Code had to file an application exclusively with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO). However, under Section 46.1 of the statute, an employee can now pursue a human rights claim directly in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, provided it is attached to another civil claim. For example, if you are fired immediately after returning from a medical leave, you can sue for wrongful dismissal and simultaneously claim general damages for a breach of the Code in the same lawsuit. This prevents employees from having to fight their employer in two separate legal venues.
In unionized workplaces, the application of the Code operates differently. Courts have routinely established that if a dispute fundamentally arises from a collective agreement, the labour arbitrator has exclusive jurisdiction. This means unionized employees generally must enforce their Code rights through the grievance arbitration process rather than the courts or the tribunal. Arbitrators possess broad powers to apply the Code, such as ruling that certain benefit exclusions for gradual-onset injuries are discriminatory and invalid.
Remedies for a Code violation are distinct from standard severance pay. They can include general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, alongside compensation for lost wages (special damages), and sometimes systemic remedies requiring the employer to change their policies. Because proving that a protected ground was a "factor" in an employer's adverse decision requires strategic evidence gathering, and choosing between the HRTO and civil court is a binding procedural choice, navigating this legislation requires precise legal guidance.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue my employer in regular court for a Human Rights Code violation?
Yes, but only if you combine it with another civil claim, such as wrongful dismissal or constructive dismissal. Under Section 46.1 of the Code, judges can award human rights damages as part of a larger lawsuit. If your only issue is discrimination with no other legal claims, you must file at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
How long do I have to file a claim under the Code?
The deadline depends on your venue. If you are filing at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, you have exactly one year from the last incident of discrimination to submit your application. If you are attaching a Section 46.1 claim to a civil lawsuit for wrongful dismissal, the standard two-year civil limitation period typically applies.
Does my collective agreement override the Human Rights Code?
No. The Code holds quasi-constitutional status and overrides contradictory terms in a collective agreement. If a union contract contains discriminatory exclusions—such as denying benefits for specific types of medical absences—an arbitrator can strike down those provisions using the Code.
What kind of financial compensation is awarded for a Code violation?
Adjudicators can order "general damages" to compensate for the emotional impact and injury to your dignity, which are separate from standard severance. They can also award "special damages" to repay you for lost wages, order the reinstatement of wrongly terminated benefits, or restore depleted sick leave credits.
Do I have to prove discrimination was the only reason I was fired?
No. Under Ontario human rights jurisprudence, you only need to prove that a protected ground (like your age or disability) was a "factor" in the employer's decision. Even if the employer had legitimate performance concerns, firing you is still a Code violation if your protected status influenced the termination in any way.
Should I speak to a lawyer before filing a Human Rights Tribunal application?
It is highly recommended. Selecting the correct procedural path—whether civil court, a union grievance, or the Tribunal—is complex and binding. A legal professional can evaluate your facts to ensure you aren't inadvertently abandoning a larger wrongful dismissal case by isolating your human rights complaint.
Common Scenarios
- An employee is diagnosed with cancer and takes a 14-month medical leave. The employer abruptly cuts off their workplace health and dental benefits, arguing the contract is frustrated. The employee utilizes the Code to argue this premature termination of benefits is discriminatory based on disability.
- A worker is terminated without cause shortly after disclosing a pregnancy. Rather than filing at the Human Rights Tribunal, they sue in civil court, combining a claim for common law notice with a claim for damages under Section 46.1 of the Code.
- A unionized factory worker develops a gradual-onset injury. The employer denies specific workplace insurance top-ups, citing an exclusion in the collective agreement. The union files a grievance, using the Code to argue that the contract's exclusion illegally targets certain types of disabilities.
- An older executive is pushed out of the company and offered a standard severance package containing a full and final release. The employer tries to force the employee to sign away their right to bring any future age discrimination claims under the Code in exchange for their minimum statutory payouts.
What You Should Know
- Do not sign a severance release without having it reviewed; these documents almost always contain clauses requiring you to waive your rights under the Human Rights Code, which destroys your ability to pursue damages later.
- Keep a detailed, dated journal of discriminatory incidents, comments, and accommodation requests. Proving a Code violation often relies on demonstrating a timeline of adverse treatment closely following your disclosure of a protected characteristic.
- If you are unionized, do not bypass your union representative to file a civil claim for discrimination. Courts will almost certainly dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, meaning you must initiate a grievance instead.
- Do not let the one-year Human Rights Tribunal filing deadline expire while you are informally negotiating with your employer or waiting for an internal HR investigation to conclude.
Featured Cases
B. v. The Corporation of Norfolk County et al
2025 ONSC 542 (CanLII) · 2025-01-27Employment: Leave to Amend Pleadings for Human Rights Claims
This is an interlocutory motion regarding leave to amend a statement of claim in an employment dispute. The plaintiff sought to add causes of action including breaches of the Human Rights Code, intrusion upon seclusion, and defamation to existing claims of wrongful dismissal and toxic work environment. The court granted leave in part, allowing Human Rights Code claims based on the same factual matrix despite limitation period issues, but denied leave for negligent infliction of mental suffering and intentional interference with contractual relations due to insufficient material facts.
G. v. S.
2020 ONSC 2028 (CanLII) · 2020-04-02Jurisdiction: Sexual Harassment in Unionized Workplace
This is an interlocutory or jurisdictional decision determining whether civil courts have jurisdiction over sexual harassment and assault allegations in a unionized workplace governed by a collective agreement. The court considered the application of the Weber and Parry Sound principles, whether the labour arbitrator has exclusive jurisdiction, and whether civil claims for damages under the Human Rights Code are barred.
M. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
2019 ONSC 532 (CanLII) · 2019-02-07Workplace Discrimination: Rule 21 Motion to Strike
This is a civil procedure decision regarding a Rule 21 motion to strike claims in an employment dispute involving constructive dismissal, discrimination, and harassment. The court addressed whether the plaintiff's allegations of discrimination based on age and disability, as well as harassment and intentional infliction of mental suffering, were sufficiently pleaded to establish liability against the employer and individual defendants. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend the statement of claim to address deficiencies, while the defendants were awarded partial indemnity costs.
D.P. v. Linamar Corporation
2018 ONSC 241 (CanLII) · 2018-01-26Discrimination Claim: HRTO Withdrawal & Civil Court Estoppel
This is an interlocutory proceeding addressing whether a plaintiff's withdrawal of a discrimination application from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) with prejudice precludes them from pursuing the same claim in civil court. The defendant argued that issue estoppel and abuse of process barred the civil action, while the plaintiff asserted a right to choose the forum for discrimination claims under the Human Rights Code.
S. -and- St. Clair College
2010 ONSC 2133 (CanLII) · 2010-04-16Wrongful Dismissal and Human Rights Code: Accommodation and Personal Liability
A wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff alleged failure to accommodate a medical condition under the Human Rights Code. The court addressed whether a claim under section 46.1 of the Human Rights Code can be advanced alongside a wrongful dismissal claim, and whether corporate officers can be personally liable for tortious conduct or breach of contract under the Code.
D. v. Riva Plumbing Limited
2007 CanLII 40543 (ON SC) · 2007-09-26Employee with Metastasized Cancer Not Resigned: Sick Leave and Discrimination Case
A merits decision involving an employee diagnosed with metastasized breast cancer who was absent from work for 14 months. The court held that the employee did not resign and remained on sick leave, that the employment contract was not frustrated, and that the employer may have violated the Human Rights Code by terminating health benefits without reasonable notice.
Q. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission)
2006 CanLII 63686 (ON SC) · 2006-04-25Human Rights Discrimination Case: Remedies Upheld by Tribunal
A human rights tribunal case addressing remedies for discrimination, including pension benefits, sick leave credits, lost income, and general damages. The tribunal's findings on remedies were upheld as reasonable, and the Charter challenge to section 41(4) of the Ontario Human Rights Code was dismissed.
L. v. Ontario Human Rights Commission
2005 CanLII 36441 (ON CA) · 2005-10-11HR Commission Discretion: Settlement Privilege & Review
This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a Divisional Court decision dismissing an application for judicial review. The employee filed a human rights complaint alleging disability discrimination against his former employer. The Ontario Human Rights Commission decided not to refer the complaint to a board of inquiry because the employer had made a reasonable settlement offer. The Divisional Court upheld the Commission's decision. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Commission has the discretion to consider settlement offers when deciding whether a referral is appropriate and that the offer was not protected by settlement privilege.
R. v. C.
2005 CanLII 8702 (ON SC) · 2005-03-23Workplace Discrimination Case: Claims Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
A workplace discrimination case where the plaintiff alleged claims of discrimination, defamation, and intentional infliction of mental suffering. The court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the collective agreement provided an effective remedy and that the claims were subject to arbitration under the agreement.
P. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission)
2003 CanLII 8701 (ON CA) · 2003-01-29P. v. Ontario Human Rights Commission
This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from an order of the Divisional Court ordering the production of a legal opinion. The employee, C.P., sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to deal with her complaint against Sears Canada Inc. The Divisional Court held that a legal opinion provided to the Commission by its in-house counsel was not protected by solicitor-client privilege because the Commission was not adverse in interest to the complainant. The Court of Appeal allowed the Commission's appeal, holding that the legal opinion was protected by solicitor-client privilege, rejecting the lower courts' reliance on a New Brunswick decision.
J. 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.
S.E.I.U., Local 528 v. Ontario Jockey Club
2001 CanLII 28418 (ON SC) · 2001-11-08Workplace Discrimination: Exclusion of Gradual-Onset Injuries Violates Human Rights Code
A workplace discrimination case involving a collective agreement's exclusion of gradual-onset injuries from workplace insurance coverage. The court held that such exclusion constitutes discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code and upheld the remedy ordered by Arbitrator Adams.
J. v. Ontario Human Rights Commission
2001 CanLII 24025 (ON CA) · 2001-03-08J. v. Ontario Human Rights Commission - Costs Appeal
This is an appeal by the applicant of an assessment of a party-and-party bill of costs for a motion for leave to appeal and a one-day appeal. The applicant previously lost an appeal where he argued that his political beliefs were protected under "creed" in the Human Rights Code. The Assessment Officer assessed the successful employer's costs at $39,641.14, including a $35,000 counsel fee. The Court of Appeal found the $35,000 counsel fee unreasonably high because the employer's counsel argued only one legal question they had already argued below and did not argue the Charter issue. The court reduced the counsel fee to $17,500.
Ford Motor Co. of Canada v. Ontario (Human Rights Comm.) (No. 2)
1999 CanLII 15056 (ON SC) · 1999-06-23Workplace Discrimination: Employer Liable for Racial Harassment
A workplace discrimination case involving racial harassment and a poisoned work environment. The employer was held liable for statutory breaches under the Human Rights Code for condoning and failing to address racial slurs and harassment in the workplace.
McKenzie Forest Products Inc. v. T.
1999 CanLII 35213 (ON SCDC) · 1999-05-31Human Rights: Complainant Carriage After Commission Withdrawal
This is a judicial review decision concerning the jurisdiction of a Board of Inquiry under the Ontario Human Rights Code after the Commission withdrew from carriage of a complaint. The Court determined that the Board lacked jurisdiction to proceed and that a complainant cannot independently carry the complaint without the Commission.
McKenzie Forest Products Inc. v. T.
1999 CanLII 15057 (ON SC) · 1999-05-31Human Rights Employment: Board of Inquiry Jurisdiction After Commission Withdrawal
A human rights employment case addressing whether a Board of Inquiry retains jurisdiction to proceed with a hearing after the Ontario Human Rights Commission withdraws from the proceedings. The case examines the Commission’s statutory role and the complainant’s ability to carry forward the complaint independently.
S. v. Intercorp Excelle Foods Inc.
1999 CanLII 14852 (ON SC) · 1999-04-09Wrongful Dismissal: Disability Leave and Duty to Accommodate
A wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff was terminated after requesting part-time work following a disability leave. The court found the employer failed to establish undue hardship and extended the notice period due to bad faith conduct. The case also addressed the duty to accommodate under the Ontario Human Rights Code and the deductibility of long-term disability benefits from damages.
A. v. B.
1999 CanLII 14879 (ON SC) · 1999-01-19Workplace Discrimination: Employee Dismissed Over Family Allegations
A workplace discrimination case where an employee was dismissed due to allegations made by their family members against the employer. The court examined whether this dismissal constituted discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code, focusing on the interpretation of 'marital status' and 'family status' in employment contexts.
F. v. Ontario (Attorney General of)
1998 CanLII 6274 (ON CA) · 1998-12-07F. v. Ontario: Charter Challenge to Repeal of Equity Act
This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from an application judge's decision dismissing a constitutional challenge. The appellants, representing groups covered by the repealed Employment Equity Act, 1993, challenged the Job Quotas Repeal Act, 1995, which repealed the former Act, as violating s. 15 of the Charter. The application judge held there was no constitutional duty to leave the employment equity legislation in place and no Charter violation. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding that the differences between the enforcement of equality under the proactive 1993 Act and the complaints-based Human Rights Code did not amount to a constitutional distinction under s. 15, and there is likely no positive obligation under s. 15 to enact employment equity legislation.
B. v. Ontario (Human Rights Comm.)
1998 CanLII 14956 (ON SC) · 1998-11-26Human Rights Commission Dismissal Review: Judicial Review of s. 34(1) Decision
A judicial review case concerning the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s decision to dismiss a complaint under s. 34(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code. The applicant challenged the decision, arguing it was patently unreasonable, while the Commission found the complaint could be more appropriately dealt with under the Education Act. The court applied the standard of review for patent unreasonableness and interpreted the discretionary powers under s. 34(1).