Ontario Human Rights Code — Ontario Employment Law
Related Keywords
About Ontario Human Rights Code
The Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC) is a provincial law that gives everybody equal rights and opportunities without discrimination in specific areas of life, including employment. It is a cornerstone of Ontario's legal framework, aiming to foster a society where everyone feels they are a part of the community and can contribute fully. Unlike the Employment Standards Act, which sets minimum standards for things like wages and hours, the Code deals with the fundamental dignity and worth of every person.
In the workplace, the Code prohibits discrimination and harassment based on a set of protected 'grounds.' These grounds 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. The protection extends through the entire employment relationship, from the job advertisement and hiring process to training, promotions, discipline, and termination. For example, an employer cannot refuse to hire someone because they are pregnant (family status/sex) or force an employee to retire at a certain age (age).
The Code also establishes a 'duty to accommodate' for employers. This means they must take steps to address the unique needs of employees related to a protected ground, such as a disability or religious belief, unless doing so would cause 'undue hardship.' This could involve modifying job duties, providing assistive devices, or allowing a flexible work schedule. Issues under the Code are typically addressed through an application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO). Because every situation involving human rights is highly dependent on its specific facts and context, understanding how the Code applies to your circumstances often requires careful analysis.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between filing at the Human Rights Tribunal and suing for wrongful dismissal?
A Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) application deals specifically with violations of the Human Rights Code, like discrimination or harassment. A wrongful dismissal lawsuit deals with a breach of your employment contract, typically for not being given enough notice or pay in lieu of notice. While you can sometimes claim human rights damages within a wrongful dismissal lawsuit, the HRTO is the specialized body for adjudicating Code violations.
How long do I have to file a human rights application in Ontario?
Under the Code, you generally have one year from the date the incident of discrimination or harassment happened to file an application with the HRTO. If there was a series of related incidents, the one-year clock starts from the date of the last incident.
Does the Ontario Human Rights Code apply to all employers?
The Code applies to all provincially regulated employers in Ontario, regardless of their size. It does not apply to federally regulated industries, such as banks, airlines, and federal crown corporations, which are covered by the Canadian Human Rights Act.
My manager punished me for complaining about discrimination. Is that allowed?
No. The Code contains a specific protection against 'reprisal.' This means your employer cannot punish you, intimidate you, or threaten you for claiming your rights under the Code, filing an application, or participating in a proceeding.
What kind of remedies can the Human Rights Tribunal order if my rights were violated?
The HRTO can order a wide range of remedies, including monetary compensation for injury to dignity and self-respect, payment for lost wages, and non-monetary remedies like reinstatement to your job, requiring the employer to undergo human rights training, or implementing new anti-discrimination policies.
When should I consult an employment lawyer about a Human Rights Code issue?
You should consider consulting a lawyer as soon as you believe your rights have been violated. A lawyer can help you understand if your situation falls under the Code, explain the different legal avenues available (HRTO vs. civil court), and help you navigate the strict deadlines and complex procedures involved.
Common Scenarios
- During a job interview, a candidate is asked questions about their plans to have children.
- An employee with a religious observance requirement is scheduled to work on a day of worship and their request for a shift swap is denied without explanation.
- A company undergoes restructuring, and the only employees selected for layoff are those over the age of 60.
- An employee returns from a disability leave and is informed their previous position was eliminated and the only available role is a significant demotion.
- A manager makes persistent, unwelcome comments about an employee's ethnic background, creating a poisoned work environment.
What You Should Know
- Keep a detailed, confidential journal of any incidents you believe violate the Human Rights Code, noting dates, times, witnesses, and exactly what was said or done.
- Review your employer's internal policies on discrimination and harassment. Following the internal complaint process can sometimes resolve the issue, but it doesn't stop you from filing an external application.
- Be mindful of the one-year limitation period to file an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which starts from the last act of discrimination.
- Gather and preserve any relevant documents, such as emails, performance reviews, or text messages, that could support your claim of discrimination or harassment.
- Consulting with an employment lawyer can provide clarity on whether your rights under the Code have been infringed and what the most strategic course of action is for your specific case.
Featured Cases
Chin v Beauty Express Canada Inc.
2022 ONSC 6178 (CanLII) · 2022-11-07Wrongful Dismissal: Prior Service and Termination Clause Considered
A wrongful dismissal case where the court considered whether prior service with a predecessor employer should be factored into the reasonable notice period. The plaintiff was awarded 7¼ months' notice, partially recognizing prior service. The court also addressed issues of aggravated and punitive damages, age discrimination, and the enforceability of a termination clause.
Incognito v. Skyservice Business Aviation Inc.
2022 ONSC 1795 (CanLII) · 2022-03-22Sexual Harassment: Vicarious Liability Struck Under Ontario Human Rights Code
A motion to strike a claim for vicarious liability for sexual harassment under the Ontario Human Rights Code was granted, as the court found no independent tort of sexual harassment and section 46.3 of the Code excludes vicarious liability. Leave to amend the claim for monetary compensation under section 46.1 was denied for the vicarious liability claims but allowed for other Code infringements.
Kalamaris v. IBM Canada Limited
2021 ONSC 5704 (CanLII) · 2021-08-24Age Discrimination Case: IBM Canada Limited
A civil procedure case where the court struck part of a plaintiff's statement of claim alleging age discrimination at IBM, ruling that the comparator group must be appropriately defined and that evidence referencing a separate legal entity should be excluded. The court emphasized the need to limit pleadings to avoid unnecessary litigation burdens.
Clayton v. SPS Commerce Canada Ltd.
2018 ONSC 5017 (CanLII) · 2018-08-22Workplace Harassment: Employer Obligations and Constructive Dismissal
A case involving workplace harassment where an employee was placed on a performance improvement plan after raising harassment claims. The court examined whether an employer's conduct during a harassment investigation is relevant to claims of constructive dismissal and whether communications regarding statutory obligations are protected by settlement privilege.
Peternel v. Custom Granite & Marble Ltd.
2018 ONSC 3508 (CanLII) · 2018-06-05Maternity Leave and Reinstatement: Employment Standards Act Case
A case involving an employee's maternity leave and the employer's obligation to reinstate her to a comparable position. The court also considered whether a change in start time constituted constructive dismissal and whether it amounted to family status discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code.
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.
Silvera v Olympia Jewellery Corporation
2015 ONSC 3760 (CanLII) · 2015-06-16Workplace Harassment and Wrongful Dismissal: Employer Liable for Damages
A wrongful dismissal case where an employee was dismissed after reporting workplace harassment and sexual assault. The court found the employer liable for wrongful dismissal and awarded damages, including aggravated and punitive damages. The case also involved sexual assault and racial harassment claims, with the employer found vicariously liable. The court also awarded damages under the Human Rights Code and the Family Law Act.
Bellehumeur v Windsor Factory Supply Ltd.
2013 ONSC 4373 (CanLII) · 2013-08-08Termination for Just Cause: Threats and Mental Health
A case involving the termination of an employee for just cause due to threats made upon leaving the workplace. The court examined whether the employer's termination was justified, considering the balance between the employer's right to terminate for major employment offences and the duty to accommodate the employee's mental health condition. The case also addressed the employer's duty to investigate threats and comply with its own handbook policies.
Anderson v. Tasco Distributors
2011 ONSC 269 (CanLII) · 2011-01-10Wrongful Dismissal and Human Rights Code Claims: Jurisdiction and Pleadings
A wrongful dismissal case where the employer sought to strike portions of the plaintiff's Statement of Claim alleging failure to accommodate and wrongful dismissal. The court ruled that the Superior Court has jurisdiction to hear claims for breach of the Ontario Human Rights Code when tied to other actionable wrongs, and that the pleadings were sufficient to support the claims.
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.
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.
McKenzie Forest Products Inc. v. Tilberg
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.
Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 267 v. Domtar Inc.
1992 CanLII 7512 (ON SC) · 1992-03-19Human Rights Employment: Union and Employer Jointly Liable for Religious Discrimination
A human rights case involving adverse effect discrimination based on religious creed, where both the employer and union were found jointly and severally liable for failing to accommodate the employee's religious beliefs. The court examined whether the union contributed to wage loss through discriminatory practices and whether the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the employee's religious needs.
Commercial Union Assurance v. Ontario (Human Rights Comm.)
1987 CanLII 8491 (ON SC) · 1987-05-05Human Rights Complaint: Procedural Fairness Breach Quashes Commission Decision
A human rights complaint case where the Ontario Human Rights Commission reconsidered its initial decision not to appoint a Board of Inquiry. The court found a breach of procedural fairness due to failure to disclose evidence and notify the applicants, and quashed the Commission’s decision due to delay and prejudice.
Re Canadian Corps of Commissionaires (Toronto & Region) and Barnard et al.
1986 CanLII 2475 (ON SC) · 1986-07-03Human Rights Employment: Citizenship Requirement Found Discriminatory
A human rights case involving the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, which required members to be Canadian citizens or British subjects. The case examined whether this requirement constituted discrimination on the basis of nationality under the Ontario Human Rights Code, particularly in light of the Corps' role as an employer and its primary objective being employment rather than fraternal or social purposes.
Re Commodore Business Machines Ltd. et al. and Minister of Labour for Ontario et al.
1984 CanLII 2017 (ON SC) · 1984-11-01Human Rights Employment: Sexual Harassment and Board of Inquiry Jurisdiction
A human rights employment case involving sexual harassment and the jurisdiction of a board of inquiry under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The board was found to have correctly interpreted the Code and admitted similar fact and hearsay evidence in its proceedings.
Benet v. GEC Canada Ltd.
1980 CanLII 1628 (ON SC) · 1980-10-30Workplace Discrimination: Civil Action Stayed Pending Board Inquiry
A wrongful dismissal and discrimination case where the plaintiff alleged dismissal based on race, colour, nationality, and ancestry under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The court stayed the civil action pending determination of board of inquiry proceedings, which were granted exclusive jurisdiction under the Act.
Re Dagg and Ontario Human Rights Commission et al.
1979 CanLII 1671 (ON SC) · 1979-09-18Workplace Discrimination Case: Ontario Human Rights Commission Investigates Hiring Practices
A discrimination case involving a complaint of sex-based discrimination in hiring practices investigated by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The Commission recommended no board of inquiry, and the Minister of Labour accepted this recommendation. The court determined that the Commission and Minister were acting in an administrative, not judicial, capacity and were not required to provide a hearing.
Re Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police et al. and Ontario Human Rights Commission et al.
1979 CanLII 1840 (ON SC) · 1979-09-18Human Rights Employment: Probationary Constable Dismissal Case
A human rights case involving a probationary police constable who was dismissed by the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police. The issue centered on whether the board of inquiry had jurisdiction to hear the complaint under the Ontario Human Rights Code and whether the board of commissioners could be considered a 'person' under the Code.