The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) has dismissed a case involving allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination within the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board.
The case, brought by an occasional teacher, centred on claims that she was subjected to a series of harassing text messages from the spouse of a vice-principal at the school where she worked.
The Tribunal ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the matter, leading to a dismissal of the application.
Background and claims
A.C., the applicant, alleged that she received inappropriate text messages from the spouse of a vice-principal at her new school, starting on August 9, 2018. She reported these incidents to her union, prompting a meeting on Aug. 30, 2018, with representatives from the union and the school board to address her concerns.
The Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board responded by offering A.C. a paid leave while they searched for an alternative assignment, later providing her a full-semester position at another school. They also suggested she file a police report, which she delayed for about one and a half months.
Eventually, the harasser pleaded guilty to the charges, resulting in an Adult Probation order on Aug. 27, 2019.
Despite these measures, A.C. continued to express concerns for her safety and mental health, leading to her taking medical leave for stress and anxiety. She further alleged that her requests for accommodation due to ongoing mental health issues were not fully met, though the school board did make some adjustments during the interview process for a permanent position in January 2019.
Tribunal’s analysis
The HRTO’s decision hinged on its jurisdiction under the Human Rights Code, which restricts the Tribunal’s scope to enforcing specific protections against discrimination in designated social areas, including employment. The adjudicator, Denise Ghanam, outlined two key issues in her analysis:
- Whether the alleged harassment fell within the workplace as defined by the Code:
- The Tribunal noted that the harasser was not an employee of the school board and held no authority to confer or deny employment benefits. The relationship was deemed tangential, not meeting the Code’s criteria for harassment within the social area of employment.
- Whether there was a sufficient connection between the applicant’s allegations and her protected grounds of gender identity or disability:
- The Tribunal found that the applicant’s claims did not establish a nexus between the harassment and her employment, particularly as she did not return to the workplace during the relevant period and was subsequently offered a permanent position. The respondent’s actions, including offering alternative assignments and accommodations, were deemed reasonable and not discriminatory.
Key findings
Adjudicator Ghanam emphasized that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to cases where there is clear evidence of discrimination tied to the enumerated grounds under the Code.
“The alleged harasser is neither an employer, an agent of the employer, or another employee; nor does he hold the ability to confer or deny the applicant a benefit.” As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the allegations of sexual harassment and a poisoned work environment did not fall within its jurisdiction.
The adjudicator also addressed the applicant’s claims of disability discrimination, noting that the school board had provided reasonable accommodations during the interview process and had approved various leaves of absence. The Tribunal found no evidence of adverse treatment or actions that perpetuated disadvantage based on the applicant’s mental health disability.
In dismissing the application, the HRTO underscored the importance of a clear factual basis for claims of discrimination, beyond conjecture and assertions. Adjudicator Ghanam concluded, “The applicant has failed to provide a factual basis beyond conjecture and bald assertions which link their enumerated grounds to the respondent’s actions, or which demonstrate actual adverse treatment.”
For more information, see Cillis v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, 2024 HRTO 1006 (CanLII).
