Workplace discrimination — Ontario Employment Law
Related Keywords
About Workplace discrimination
What is the line between unfair treatment and illegal workplace discrimination in Ontario? While not every slight or instance of favouritism is against the law, the Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC) provides robust protections against discrimination based on specific personal characteristics, known as 'protected grounds.' Workplace discrimination occurs when an employer treats an employee adversely because of their race, age, sex, disability, or another protected ground. This can happen at any stage of the employment relationship, from hiring and promotions to discipline and termination.
The OHRC lists 17 protected grounds: race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed (religion), sex (including pregnancy and breastfeeding), sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age (18 and over), record of offences (provincial offences or pardoned federal offences), marital status, family status, and disability. Any workplace rule, decision, or action that disadvantages an employee based on one of these grounds is a form of discrimination.
Discrimination isn't always obvious. While direct discrimination involves a clear and intentional act (e.g., refusing to hire someone because of their religion), discrimination can also be subtle or unintentional. 'Indirect' or 'constructive' discrimination happens when a seemingly neutral policy has a negative impact on a group protected by the Code. For example, a rigid 9-to-5 schedule could indirectly discriminate against an employee with family status obligations, like childcare responsibilities. 'Systemic discrimination' refers to patterns of behaviour and policies embedded in an organization's structure that create or perpetuate disadvantage. It's crucial to understand that intent is not required; the focus is on the effect of the action or policy. Because the nuances of a discrimination claim depend heavily on the specific facts of your employment situation, getting professional guidance can be essential to understanding your rights.
Frequently Asked Questions
What's the difference between being treated unfairly and being illegally discriminated against?
Unfair treatment, like favouritism or a personality conflict with a manager, is not illegal on its own. It becomes illegal discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code when the negative treatment is connected to a protected ground, such as your race, age, disability, or gender identity.
What is the time limit for filing a workplace discrimination claim in Ontario?
You generally have one year from the date the discrimination occurred to file an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO). If it was a series of related incidents, the one-year clock typically starts from the last incident.
Can my employer punish me for making a discrimination complaint?
No. The Ontario Human Rights Code contains a 'reprisal' clause. This makes it illegal for your employer to intimidate, fire, or otherwise penalize you for claiming your rights, filing a complaint, or participating in a human rights proceeding.
What kind of proof do I need for a discrimination claim?
You don't need a 'smoking gun' admission. You must first establish a prima facie case, meaning you show evidence that you are a member of a protected group, experienced adverse treatment, and there is a link between the two. The burden then shifts to the employer to provide a credible, non-discriminatory explanation.
My workplace is unionized. Where do I bring a discrimination complaint?
For unionized employees, discrimination issues are typically handled through the grievance and arbitration process outlined in your collective agreement. In some specific circumstances, the Human Rights Tribunal may have concurrent jurisdiction, but the primary venue is usually arbitration.
What is a 'poisoned work environment'?
A poisoned work environment is a form of discrimination where serious and repeated comments or conduct create a hostile or offensive atmosphere for an employee based on a protected ground. It can be grounds for a human rights claim, even if the conduct isn't directed at you personally.
When should I consult an employment lawyer about discrimination?
You should consider consulting a lawyer if you believe you are being targeted based on a protected ground, if you are facing termination, or if the environment has become so hostile you are considering resigning. A lawyer can help you assess your options and navigate the correct legal channels.
Common Scenarios
- During a performance review, a manager comments that an employee who recently had a child seems 'less committed' and denies them a previously discussed promotion.
- A company's social events consistently revolve around alcohol, effectively excluding an employee whose religion prohibits its consumption.
- Following a medical leave for a mental health condition, an employee is demoted to a less stressful, lower-paying role without any discussion about accommodation.
- In a team meeting, a supervisor repeatedly makes jokes about an older employee's ability to use new technology, calling them a 'dinosaur'.
- A hiring manager rejects a visibly pregnant candidate, stating they are looking for someone who can offer 'long-term stability' from day one.
What You Should Know
- Keep a detailed, confidential log of all incidents you believe are discriminatory, including dates, times, witnesses, and what was said or done.
- Gather and save any relevant emails, performance reviews, or other documents that could support your claim of differential treatment.
- Review your employee handbook for an internal anti-discrimination or human rights complaint policy and consider using it, but only if you feel safe doing so.
- Be mindful of the one-year limitation period to file a claim with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which starts from the last act of discrimination.
- Before resigning due to a discriminatory environment, speak with an employment lawyer to understand the legal test for constructive dismissal and preserve your rights.
Featured Cases
Mittal v. Department of National Defence
2025 ONSC 7256 (CanLII) · 2025-12-30Workplace Harassment and Negligence: Claims Struck and Amendments Denied
A motion to strike claims related to workplace harassment and negligence in the federal public sector, as these are considered employment disputes under the grievance regime. The court also denied leave to amend the claims and dismissed a request for discovery, rendering the motion moot.
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.
Khanom v. Idealogic PDS Inc.
2024 ONSC 5131 (CanLII) · 2024-09-16Workplace Discrimination: Prima Facie Case and Reasonable Notice
A case involving the burden of proof and elements of a prima facie case under the Human Rights Code of Ontario, specifically regarding reasonable notice and duty to accommodate.
Stride v. Syra Group et al.
2024 ONSC 2169 (CanLII) · 2024-04-24Discrimination Case: Harassment Based on Disability
A discrimination case involving harassment based on disability, where the court will determine vicarious liability for the employer. The procedural posture is not specified in the keywords.
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.
Adejuyigbe v. Torstar et al.
2022 ONSC 4447 (CanLII) · 2022-07-28Racial Discrimination and Employment Termination: Case Summary
A civil procedure case involving claims of racial discrimination and termination of employment. The court struck the plaintiff's statement of claim for lack of a reasonable cause of action and found the release agreement to be a full answer to the claim. The court also did not need to decide if the claim was statute-barred due to limitation periods.
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.
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.
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.
Ciulla v. The Toronto Catholic District School Board
2021 ONSC 3110 (CanLII) · 2021-04-28Workplace Discrimination: Arbitration vs Civil Court Jurisdiction
A case involving workplace harassment, discrimination, and non-enforcement of policies by school board employees. The court considered whether disputes arising from a collective agreement should be resolved through mandatory arbitration or civil court jurisdiction, applying principles from Weber v. Ontario Hydro. The case also addressed the scope of the duty to ensure a harassment-free workplace and the nature of defamation claims in the context of employment relationships.
De Facendis v. Toronto Parking Authority
2021 ONSC 1695 (CanLII) · 2021-03-08Workplace Sexual Harassment: Arbitration Jurisdiction and Charter Rights
A unionized employee alleged sexual harassment and assault by a co-worker, leading to a dispute over the jurisdiction of labour arbitrators under the Labour Relations Act. The court affirmed the arbitrators' jurisdiction, interpreting section 48(1) to include workplace sexual assault claims and found no violation of the Charter of Rights regarding sex discrimination.
Nahum v. Honeycomb Hospitality Inc.
2021 ONSC 1455 (CanLII) · 2021-02-26Pregnancy Discrimination Case: Reasonable Notice Determination
A summary judgment motion was filed in a workplace discrimination case involving pregnancy. The case likely involves a determination of reasonable notice for an employee terminated due to pregnancy.
Saier v. The Ottawa Hospital
2020 ONSC 7909 (CanLII) · 2020-12-21Harassment and Discrimination Claims in Employment Relationship
A case involving claims of harassment, discrimination, and workplace safety under a collective agreement. The court applied the Weber v. Ontario Hydro framework to determine if these claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of grievance arbitrators. The case also addressed pleading requirements for defamation and motions to strike portions of the statement of claim.
Allan Etherington v. National Hockey League
2020 ONSC 5789 (CanLII) · 2020-09-25Workplace Discrimination and Constructive Dismissal Case
A constructive and wrongful dismissal case involving allegations of failure to accommodate workplace injuries, creation of a poisoned work environment, and termination without notice or severance. The case also includes claims of negligence, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and workplace discrimination/harassment based on disability. The court must determine if the pleadings disclose reasonable causes of action and whether the insurer can be held liable.
Roderick Stewart v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers
2020 ONSC 5687 (CanLII) · 2020-09-21Workplace Discrimination: Union and Lawyer Alleged to Have Conspired Against Employee
A court case involving a plaintiff alleging discrimination by a union and its lawyer during grievance proceedings. The court determined that the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) has exclusive jurisdiction over such claims and that the plaintiff's action was an abuse of process due to re-litigation of issues already decided.
Nelson v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, et al.
2020 ONSC 2147 (CanLII) · 2020-04-07Workplace Discrimination: Civil Action Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
A unionized employee's civil action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to workplace discrimination and harassment claims, which must be resolved through arbitration or the Human Rights Code. The court also addressed the union's duty of fair representation claim, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Greenlaw v. Scott
2020 ONSC 2028 (CanLII) · 2020-04-02Workplace Sexual Harassment: Court Determines Jurisdiction Over Unionized Disputes
A court case regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitrators over workplace disputes, specifically sexual harassment and assault allegations, under the Labour Relations Act, 1995. The court applied Weber v. Ontario Hydro and Parry Sound principles to determine the jurisdiction of civil courts over such disputes governed by collective agreements.
Render v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited
2019 ONSC 7460 (CanLII) · 2019-11-27Sexual Harassment and Wrongful Dismissal: 30-Year Employee Awarded 24 Months Notice
A wrongful dismissal case involving a long-term employee (30 years) who was dismissed for cause due to sexual harassment. The court applied the McKinley v. BC Tel framework to assess the proportionality of the dismissal and determined the reasonable notice period at 24 months. The case also involved concerns over the employer's trial conduct, including a breach of witness exclusion order.
Badreddine v. Shapovalov
2019 ONSC 4914 (CanLII) · 2019-08-26Sexual Harassment Case: Employer's Conduct and Damages Awarded
A case involving sexual harassment and attempted drugging by an employer, resulting in emotional distress and PTSD for the plaintiff. The court awarded damages for general harm, loss of competitive advantage, and costs, but declined to award punitive damages.
Willsey v. Casino Rama Services Inc.
2019 ONSC 4660 (CanLII) · 2019-05-10Indigenous Employment Discrimination Case at Casino Rama
A case involving employment discrimination claims against an Indigenous employee at Casino Rama Services Inc. The court addressed the disclosure of documents related to the Operating Agreement and minutes of meetings, and declined to impose a timeline for mediation.