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
Stokes -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.
Dragone 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.
Quereshi 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.
Richards v. Catney
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.
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.
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.
Skopitz 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.
Burman 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).
Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation v. Ontario (Human Rights Comm.)
1998 CanLII 14955 (ON SC) · 1998-01-21Pregnancy Discrimination: Sick Leave Denied to Female Oncologist
A workplace discrimination case where a female oncologist was denied sick leave benefits for health-related reasons following childbirth. The court determined that the employer's policy constituted sex discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code, and that section 25(2) of the Code did not apply to self-funded sick leave plans.
Krznaric v. Chevrette
1997 CanLII 12426 (ON SC) · 1997-11-13Police Officer Disability Accommodation Case: Damages Awarded for Charter Breach
A wrongful dismissal case involving a police officer diagnosed with multiple sclerosis who requested 8-hour shifts but was denied. The court found that the Police Services Board failed to accommodate the officer's disability without undue hardship, upholding the duty to accommodate under the Police Services Act and Human Rights Code. Damages were awarded for the Charter breach.
Kulyk v. Toronto Board of Education
1996 CanLII 8125 (ON SC) · 1996-08-26Wrongful Dismissal and Collective Agreement Jurisdiction in Employment Law
A merits decision involving a wrongful dismissal and constructive dismissal claim under a collective agreement, with questions about the jurisdiction of grievance-arbitration under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and whether claims of sexual harassment and discrimination can be pursued as independent torts in civil court.
A-1 Collision and Auto Service v. Hall
1994 CanLII 7554 (ON SC) · 1994-11-29Workplace Sexual Harassment: Secretary Awarded Damages for Reprisal
A workplace sexual harassment case where a secretary was dismissed after rejecting sexual solicitation by her employer. The court upheld the Board’s findings that the employer’s conduct constituted harassment and reprisal under the Human Rights Code, and confirmed the complainant’s entitlement to a decision despite procedural delays.
Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Ontario Teachers' Federation
1994 CanLII 10578 (ON SC) · 1994-07-21Human Rights Appeal: Gender Discrimination Board Decision Finality
A human rights case involving a board of inquiry decision under the Human Rights Code that found unlawful gender discrimination. The court addressed whether the decision was final and appealable, determining that a decision disposing of a substantive right is final even if implementation remains unresolved.
Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission)
1993 CanLII 8616 (ON SC) · 1993-06-07Human Rights Complaint: Successor Company Jurisdiction and Bias Issue
A human rights complaint case where a board of inquiry added a successor company as a party to a complaint. The court examined whether the Ontario Human Rights Code grants jurisdiction to add successor companies, whether there was reasonable apprehension of bias due to a board member's prior involvement, and whether the lengthy delay in proceedings warranted dismissal.
Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Fort Frances (Town) Commissioners of Police (Ont. Div. Ct.)
1988 CanLII 4797 (ON SC) · 1988-09-13Pregnancy Discrimination: Police Officer Denied Reassignment Under Human Rights Code
A human rights case involving a pregnant police officer who was required to wear a uniform and gun belt during her pregnancy and was refused reassignment to restricted duties. The case examines whether these requirements constituted direct or constructive discrimination under the Human Rights Code, 1981.
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).
Re Tomen et al. and Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario et al.; L'Association des enseignants franco-ontariens et al., Intervenors Re Snow et al. and Ontario Teachers' Federation et al.; L'Association des enseignants franco-ontariens et al.; Intervenors
1987 CanLII 4396 (ON SC) · 1987-09-16Teachers' Federation Discrimination Case: Membership Requirements and Charter Rights
A labor and employment case involving the Ontario Teachers' Federation's by-law requiring membership in specific affiliates based on sex or type of school. The case examines whether the by-law is ultra vires the Federation's corporate powers, contravenes public policy, or violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly sections 2(d) and 15.
Piazza v. Airport Taxicab (Malton) Assn.
1987 CanLII 8586 (ON SC) · 1987-04-15Sexual Harassment Case: Lost Wages Award Reduced to Reasonable Notice Period
A sexual harassment case where the Board of Inquiry awarded compensation for lost wages and mental anguish, but the court reduced the lost wages award to the reasonable notice period and upheld the mental anguish damages. The case also addressed jurisdictional issues under the Ontario Human Rights Code and the applicability of the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Re Consumers' Distributing Co. Ltd. and Ontario Human Rights Commission et al.
1987 CanLII 4055 (ON SC) · 1987-02-09Human Rights Commission Settlement Review: Procedural Fairness and Discretion
A human rights case involving a settlement agreement where the Ontario Human Rights Commission was judicially reviewed for its decision not to ratify the agreement. The case examines whether the Commission breached procedural fairness by meeting with intervenors without the employer's presence and whether it properly exercised its discretion under section 28 of the Human Rights Code.