The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed an application filed by a worker who alleged reprisal in connection with her employment Trico Packaging and Print Solutions.
The tribunal found that the allegations failed to link any code-protected ground to her termination and that one aspect of the complaint was out of time.
Wrong paper and a panic attack
The worker, identified here as K.M., filed her application under Ontario’s Human Rights Code, alleging that she was unfairly fired by Trico. In her initial Form 1 Application, K.M. claimed reprisal — stating she was terminated after being accused of using the wrong paper type. She said she had raised concerns with the company’s owner, who purportedly questioned her character during the conversation.
K.M. described having a panic attack but did not inform her employer. She requested a day off for exhaustion and was subsequently dismissed.
According to the tribunal, K.M. did not assert a formal discrimination claim in her initial filing. However, in her Form 3 Reply, K.M. appeared to allege discrimination for the first time, indicating that her employer’s conduct may have been motivated by factors related to the Code. The tribunal, however, was not satisfied that a connection to a protected ground had been established.
“The Code only prohibits actions that discriminate against people based on their enumerated ground(s) in a protected social area,” the decision reads. “This means that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction over general allegations of unfairness unrelated to the Code.”
The tribunal stressed that while “everyone will identify with at least one Code-enumerated ground,” not all adverse treatment in the workplace amounts to discrimination.
No retaliation from employer
In K.M.’s case, she claimed that her termination was tied to accusations about her work performance — specifically using the incorrect paper type — and because she requested a day off for exhaustion. Her written submissions also referred to a conversation in which her character was allegedly attacked. The tribunal concluded that these circumstances, without a corresponding protected ground or other Code-based link, did not satisfy the threshold for discrimination or reprisal.
“Unlike an allegation of discrimination, where intention is not a necessary element to prove a violation, where reprisal is alleged, the applicant must establish that the action was taken with an intent to punish or retaliate,” the tribunal explained, quoting a previous ruling.
K.M. did not, in the tribunal’s view, prove that Trico retaliated against her for trying to exercise a Code-protected right. The adjudicator wrote that “the applicant has failed to connect the actions taken against them with the applicant’s attempt to enforce a right under the Code.”
Alleged sexual advances
A further allegation in K.M.’s Form 3 Reply involved an individual — identified here as E.
K.M. alleged that E. made sexual advances toward her in 2022, during her first days of training. However, K.M. did not elaborate beyond a single sentence and did not indicate that she reported this alleged behaviour to the employer.
The tribunal found that, even if the brief remark were taken as a genuine complaint of sexual harassment, it occurred more than one year before the application was filed. That put it outside the limitation period.
“The Code requires an individual to act with all due diligence and file their application within one year of the only or last incident of discrimination,” the tribunal wrote. “The applicant provided no good faith reasons for their delay in filing their application in relation to the sexual harassment allegation.”
The tribunal noted that it lacks discretion to proceed with a complaint if it is filed beyond the statutory deadline, unless the applicant demonstrates that the delay was made in good faith and that there is no substantial prejudice to any party. Because K.M. did not meet this requirement, the tribunal dismissed that aspect of her case as well.
Jurisidction
Jurisdiction is a threshold issue that must be decided before a tribunal can address the substance of a human rights application. The tribunal found it had no legal authority to evaluate the merits of K.M.’s complaint regarding the alleged unfair accusation about paper usage and her subsequent termination, because there was no evidence connecting those events to a protected ground under the Code.
Similarly, the claim of sexual harassment was deemed out of time for failing to meet the Code’s one-year filing requirement. The adjudicator pointed out that the Code’s strict limitation period is guided by a policy objective that requires prompt action on the part of complainants. By filing more than a year after the alleged harassment, K.M. failed to satisfy a prerequisite for the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Throughout the decision, the tribunal reiterated the principle that it cannot hear matters simply because an individual believes they have been treated unfairly. Rather, any complaint must clearly identify a link to a Code-protected ground, such as race, sexual orientation, disability, or gender identity, among others. If such a link cannot be established, or if the claim is filed too late, the tribunal will not proceed.
“Because of this, the Code does not assume that all adverse treatment is discriminatory,” the tribunal wrote, quoting a previous decision to underline the need for a clear tie to protected grounds.
K.M.’s application was dismissed in its entirety.
For more information, see Mouré v. Trico Packaging and Print Solutions Inc, 2025 HRTO 72 (CanLII).
