The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board (OTPPB) was found to have discriminated against an employee on the basis of his family status and other protected characteristics under the Ontario Human Rights Code.
The ruling comes after the worker, who was self-represented in the case, alleged that his termination was influenced by his need for workplace accommodations related to his family responsibilities, as well as incidents of workplace discrimination that were inadequately addressed by his employer.
Racially charged comments spark discrimination claim
The case centered on several incidents during D.B.’s employment with OTPPB, which lasted from Feb. 25, 2019, to July 31, 2019. A significant point of contention was a comment made by a fellow employee during an informal gathering at a restaurant near the workplace. That worker reportedly remarked that “rape is India’s favourite sport,” a statement that D.B., who is of Indian origin, found deeply offensive and discriminatory.
Although OTPPB acknowledged that the comment was made, the Tribunal noted that the employer’s response to the incident was insufficient. While it was established that the offender was spoken to and expressed remorse, the Tribunal found that OTPPB failed to communicate these actions to D.B., thereby neglecting their duty to provide a discrimination-free work environment.
Adjudicator Karen Dawson wrote in the decision that the employer “failed to reasonably investigate the applicant’s complaint” by not informing Bidwai of the steps taken in response to the incident.
Termination linked to accommodation requests
Another critical aspect of the case involved D.B.’s termination, which occurred just over five months into a one-year contract. The Tribunal found that his termination was partly influenced by his need for accommodations to care for his son, which the Tribunal determined was a factor in the decision to terminate his employment.
In an email dated June 13, 2019, D.B.’s manager cited both his work performance and his absenteeism, related to his family responsibilities, as reasons for recommending his termination. The Tribunal ruled that these accommodation needs were considered in the decision to terminate D.B., which constituted discrimination based on family status.
The Tribunal rejected OTPPB’s argument that D.B. was terminated solely due to poor performance, noting that no evidence was provided to substantiate this claim beyond the June 13 email. As a result, the Tribunal found that D.B.’s family status was a factor in his termination, in violation of the Human Rights Code.
Lack of evidence on reprisal and lost wages claims
While the Tribunal ruled in D.B.’s favour on the discrimination claim, it did not find sufficient evidence to support his allegations of reprisal or to award damages for lost wages. D.B. claimed that he was terminated in retaliation for reporting the discriminatory comment and that he suffered financial and emotional distress as a result of the discrimination.
However, the Tribunal noted that he did not provide any documentary evidence to support his claims of financial loss or mental health impacts, such as tax returns, employment records, or medical documentation.
Without this evidence, the Tribunal declined to order specific damages for lost wages. Additionally, the Tribunal found no evidence that OTPPB’s actions were intended as reprisal for D.B. asserting his rights under the Human Rights Code.
Compensation awarded for injury to dignity
Despite the limitations on other claims, the Tribunal did award D.B. $10,000 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect. The amount, which is at the lower end of the spectrum for such cases, reflects the Tribunal’s assessment that while the discrimination was serious, the extent of D.B.’s injury was less severe compared to other cases involving long-term employment or more egregious conduct.
In her ruling, Adjudicator Dawson emphasized the importance of employers taking proactive steps to ensure a discrimination-free workplace, including effectively communicating with employees about the resolution of complaints.
The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board has been ordered to pay the $10,000 in damages to D.B. as compensation for the discriminatory actions.
For more information, see Bidwai v. Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board, 2024 HRTO 1092 (CanLII).
