The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has dismissed a complaint by a female Indigenous Toronto Police Service constable, who alleged her employer discriminated against her on the basis of race, sex, and ancestry.
The tribunal found that the issues had already been dealt with by another proceeding, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB), and determined there was no need for further adjudication.
Adjudicator Ninder Thind ruled that the cop’s application must be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code. This section allows the tribunal to dismiss a complaint if it has already been appropriately addressed by another legal proceeding. In this case, the tribunal concluded that her previous WSIB claim covered the same ground as her human rights application
H.C., who identifies as an Indigenous woman, filed a human rights complaint against the Toronto Police Services Board, alleging that she faced discrimination and harassment in the workplace, including being denied promotions and subjected to inappropriate comments. She claimed that these actions created a stressful work environment, which ultimately led her to take a leave of absence due to mental health issues.
According to the ruling, H.C. alleged that a senior officer accused her of cheating during an interview for a position in the Major Crime Unit. She further stated that, while in the presence of other officers, a superior made a comment referencing “pow-wows,” which she interpreted as a derogatory remark aimed at her Indigenous background. In addition, H.C. claimed that she was unfairly marked during the promotion process for the rank of Sergeant, receiving a lower score than other candidates without explanation.
The tribunal noted that H.C.’s complaints had already been addressed by the WSIB when she filed a claim for chronic mental stress related to her work environment. The WSIB denied the claim on May 8, 2020, stating that while the “pow-wow” comment was deemed insensitive, it did not rise to the level of harassment under the board’s criteria. The WSIB also rejected the cheating accusation as a substantial stressor, finding no basis for a workplace-related mental stress claim.
In its analysis, the tribunal reviewed whether the WSIB had the jurisdiction to rule on human rights issues and concluded that it did, under the authority of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. It also found that the WSIB’s decision covered the same human rights concerns that H.C. raised before the tribunal.
Citing the Supreme Court of Canada decisions in British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola and Penner v. Niagara (Regional Police Services Board), the tribunal emphasized that it must avoid duplicative legal proceedings. “The purpose of s. 45.1 is to ensure that there are not duplicative outcomes from the same set of facts,” wrote Thind. She added that “duplicated proceedings are to be avoided because they can often result in conflicting outcomes.”
The tribunal also considered whether H.C. had a fair opportunity to present her case in the WSIB proceedings. It determined that she had the chance to engage in discussions with the WSIB case manager, present evidence, and appeal the WSIB’s decision. However, after consulting with her lawyer, she chose not to pursue an appeal of the WSIB’s denial.
Given that the WSIB had already examined the same evidence and dismissed the complaint, the tribunal found no reason to reopen the case. “It would not be unfair to dismiss the applications because another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the issues,” Thind wrote in the decision.
Since the tribunal dismissed H.C.’s case under section 45.1, it did not address whether her application had a reasonable prospect of success if it were to proceed on its own merits.
This decision reinforces the principle that the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal can dismiss complaints that have already been handled by other legal bodies, particularly in cases where the same factual issues have been previously addressed. H.C., a police constable since 1996, is no longer able to pursue her discrimination claim through the human rights process, as the tribunal determined that the WSIB’s findings were sufficient to conclude the matter.
For more information, see Clark v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2024 HRTO 615 (CanLII).
