The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has dismissed a claim of workplace discrimination and harassment based on disability filed against Toronto’s Sunnybrook Research Institute. The tribunal found no evidence to support the applicant’s allegations that the employer failed to accommodate her disability or subjected her to reprisals for filing a human rights application.
Background
K.W., who was employed as a Mental Health and Addictions System Navigator, alleged that she became disabled due to workplace sexual harassment and that her employer failed to accommodate her condition.
She further claimed that she was demoted, harassed, and faced reprisals for her complaints. The employer denied the allegations, maintaining that it met its duty to accommodate and that the applicant failed to co-operate in the accommodation and return-to-work process.
In a preliminary decision, the tribunal dismissed all allegations related to events before Oct. 18, 2017, as they were out of time under the Human Rights Code. The remaining claims proceeded to a merits hearing.
Tribunal’s findings
While K.W. had a protected characteristic under the Code (disability), the tribunal found no evidence linking her disability to adverse treatment by the employer.
Accommodation and return to work
The employer maintained that it fulfilled its duty to accommodate by engaging with K.W. to facilitate her return to work, offering alternative positions, and arranging an Independent Medical Examination (IME) when concerns arose about the adequacy of her medical documentation. The tribunal noted that:
- The employer provided paid leave for 14 months to allow for medical recovery.
- Multiple accommodation offers, including an administrative assistant position at the top of the pay scale, were extended to K.W.
- The applicant refused these offers and declined to provide necessary medical documentation to support a return to her original role.
- The employer requested an IME after conflicting medical information was provided about K.W.’s ability to work.
- The IME confirmed that K.W. could return to work but was not fit to resume her previous role.
The tribunal found that the employer’s actions were reasonable and in line with its duty to accommodate. It also concluded that K.W.’s refusal to cooperate contributed to delays in her return to work.
Harassment and reprisals
K.W. also alleged that she was harassed when the employer asked her to correct her job title on her resumé and directed her to communicate through legal counsel. The tribunal rejected these claims, finding that:
- The employer’s request to correct job title inaccuracies was reasonable and not linked to a Code-protected ground.
- The directive to communicate through legal counsel was issued in response to the applicant’s multiple internal complaints and was a reasonable workplace decision.
The tribunal emphasized that workplace policies and decisions must have a clear connection to discrimination under the Code to be actionable. In this case, there was no evidence that the employer’s actions were motivated by K.W.’s disability.
Conclusion
The tribunal determined that the applicant failed to provide any evidence demonstrating that her disability was a factor in the employer’s actions. While acknowledging the impact of mental health conditions, the tribunal stated that subjective beliefs of discrimination are insufficient without objective evidence.
As a result, the application was dismissed in its entirety.
For more information, see Wicik v. Sunnybrook Research Institute, 2025 HRTO 466 (CanLII).
