The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has dismissed a discrimination application filed against Chartwell Master Care, ruling that the application was filed outside the statutory one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code.
The applicant, J.M.H., alleged she was terminated on Dec. 10, 2021, for failing to comply with the company’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy. J.M.H. argued her dismissal constituted discrimination based on creed, as her religious beliefs prevented her from being vaccinated.
However, the Tribunal found the application was filed too late and did not meet the conditions for an extension.
Background
In the summer of 2021, Chartwell Master Care LP implemented a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy for staff, students, and volunteers. When J.M.H. learned of the policy, she requested an exemption, citing “sincerely held religious beliefs and creed.” On Oct. 23, 2021, the respondent denied her request.
On Dec. 10, 2021, J.M.H. was terminated for failing to comply with the policy. In a letter dated December 12, 2021, Chartwell confirmed the termination, stating it was due to her “continued non-compliance with Chartwell’s Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy.” The letter noted that J.M.H. had not provided proof of vaccination or an approved exemption.
J.M.H. responded to Chartwell, claiming her exemption was “approved by Provincial and Federal government.” On Dec. 13, 2021, Chartwell’s human resources department reiterated the denial of her exemption request, affirming that the decision “will not be modified.”
On Dec. 12, 2022, J.M.H. filed an application with the Tribunal — one year and two days after her termination.
Tribunal’s analysis
Under subsection 34(1) of the Human Rights Code, an application must be filed within one year of the incident of discrimination or, in the case of a series of incidents, within one year of the last incident. Subsection 34(2) allows for an extension only if the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice would result to affected parties.
J.M.H. argued that the Dec. 13, 2021, email from Chartwell’s human resources personnel represented a fresh act of discrimination. The Tribunal rejected this submission, stating that the email merely confirmed the respondent’s earlier position. Adjudicator Will McNair cited precedent, noting that a confirmation of a previous decision does not constitute a “second discrete act of discrimination” (Kus v. Ontario, 2021 HRTO 456; Ferrari v. University of Toronto, 2022 HRTO 964).
The Tribunal concluded the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred on Dec. 10, 2021, when J.M.H. was dismissed. The application, therefore, fell outside the one-year limitation period.
J.M.H. provided no evidence that the delay in filing was incurred in good faith, nor did she address the issue when directed to do so by the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.
For more information, see Hernandez v. Chartwell Master Care LP, 2024 HRTO 1789 (CanLII).
