Home Featured Human rights tribunal dismisses discrimination case against Humber River Hospital

Human rights tribunal dismisses discrimination case against Humber River Hospital

by HR Law Canada

A former worker at Humber River Hospital has seen his discrimination claims dismissed by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), with the Tribunal ruling that another proceeding had already dealt with the core issues and that the remaining allegations lacked a reasonable prospect of success.

Background

The application was filed by J.K., who had alleged multiple instances of discrimination, sexual harassment, and reprisal during his employment with the Humber River Hospital Volunteer Association (HRHVA). The HRHVA is a volunteer association which provides services to patients and their families as well as engaging in fundraising activities to support the Hospital.

The Tribunal’s decision concluded that the claims either had already been appropriately addressed by another proceeding or lacked sufficient evidence to move forward.

J.K. worked with the HRHVA at a Tim Horton’s franchise it operated from October 2016 until his dismissal in September 2018, had accused his supervisor of sexual harassment, including inappropriate touching and attempts to kiss him on several occasions. He also claimed that he received death threats from coworkers and that he was paid less than a female colleague for the same work.

Additionally, he argued that his dismissal was discriminatory and that the HRHVA actively blocked him from securing a position with the Humber River Hospital.

However, the HRTO found that J.K.’s case did not meet the necessary thresholds to proceed. The Tribunal’s adjudicator, Karen Mason, ruled that several of his claims had already been dealt with by an Employment Standards Officer (ESO) during a prior Ministry of Labour investigation. The ESO had ruled on the issues of unequal pay and the reasons for J.K.’s termination, determining that his dismissal was due to his disciplinary record rather than any discriminatory motive.

The Tribunal also reviewed J.K.;s claim that he had been prevented from securing a position at Humber River Hospital due to discriminatory reasons. J.K. had cited conversations with a recruitment specialist who allegedly indicated that HRHVA had blocked his applications. However, the Tribunal found that he did not provide any evidence linking these actions to discrimination based on race, colour, place of origin, or other protected grounds under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Third-party investigation

Moreover, the Tribunal dismissed J.K.’s allegations of sexual harassment, noting that the HRHVA had initiated a third-party investigation into the matter shortly after his dismissal. Although J.K. claimed that he had not been contacted during this investigation, the Tribunal highlighted that the investigation included interviews with several individuals, including the accused manager.

The adjudicator found that the HRHVA had no further obligation to investigate after J.K.’s employment had ended, further weakening his case.

Death threats

J.K.’s claims of receiving death threats from coworkers were also dismissed. The Tribunal acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations but found no evidence to suggest that these threats were made because of any protected characteristic under the Human Rights Code. As the adjudicator stated, “While issuing death threats to someone is reprehensible, it is not a violation of the Code, unless it is done because of a person’s Code-based ground.”

The Tribunal’s decision emphasized the importance of not duplicating proceedings that have already been addressed by other competent bodies. Referencing the case of Zhang v. Human Rights Tribunal, the adjudicator noted that duplicated proceedings can lead to conflicting outcomes, which the Tribunal seeks to avoid.

The ruling also addressed J.K.’s request to add three individual respondents to the application, including his former manager at Tim Hortons, who was alleged to have committed the acts of sexual harassment. The Tribunal denied this request, citing both procedural delays and the substantial prejudice that would result from adding new respondents at this stage of the proceedings.

For more information, see Kabonge v. Humber River Hospital, 2024 HRTO 1176 (CanLII).

You may also like