A former employee’s human rights application against Cancoil Thermal Corporation alleging sexual harassment, discrimination based on sex, and reprisal has been dismissed by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) due to delay and lack of timely, substantiated evidence.
The applicant, T.B., filed an application alleging sexual harassment spanning nearly a decade, from October 2009 until September 2019, along with allegations of reprisal relating to their termination in December 2019.
Tribunal finds significant delays in allegations
The tribunal dismissed the majority of the allegations as untimely, noting that under Ontario’s Human Rights Code, complaints must be filed within one year of the alleged discriminatory incident, or the last in a series of incidents. Despite an extension granted due to COVID-19 related suspension of limitation periods, the tribunal found only two incidents potentially timely — the termination of T.B. in December 2019, and an incident in early October 2019 when the company’s president yelled at T.B.
The tribunal found the allegations of sexual harassment occurring from 2010 to 2016, while potentially serious enough to constitute a poisoned workplace, too remote in time to connect to the 2019 termination as part of a “series of incidents.”
Lack of specific evidence undermines claims
In addition to the delay issue, the tribunal concluded that T.B. failed to substantiate the allegations related to the October 2019 incident, stating that the mere fact of a female employee being yelled at by a male superior was insufficient to establish discrimination.
“The applicant must show that there is evidence that links the unfair treatment and one or more protected grounds of discrimination,” the tribunal noted.
Further weakening T.B.’s claims was a significant discrepancy between their hearing testimony and original pleadings. While T.B. alleged continuous harassment until September 2019, the tribunal noted a lack of specific dates or detailed examples of harassment after 2016, creating credibility issues around these claims.
Termination deemed unrelated to discrimination or reprisal
T.B.’s termination followed a Facebook post criticizing fellow employees, labelling them as “bullies” and “nasty.” The tribunal determined that this post was unrelated to any protected grounds under the Human Rights Code and did not constitute discrimination or reprisal under the Code.
The tribunal highlighted that a reprisal under section 8 of the Code requires retaliation against someone for claiming or enforcing a right protected by the Code. In this case, T.B.’s social media post addressed alleged mistreatment of another employee unrelated to protected grounds, and there was insufficient evidence of intent by the employer to retaliate for protected actions by T.B.
Good faith delay argument rejected
Addressing the issue of delay, the tribunal rejected T.B.’s argument that victims of sexual harassment might naturally delay reporting due to trauma. The tribunal pointed out that T.B. had, in fact, previously complained about harassment to the company’s HR department as early as June 2015. Thus, the tribunal found no justification that T.B. was unsafe or unable to file the application earlier.
The tribunal emphasized that applications delayed beyond the statutory limit without sufficient justification—even by a single day—cannot be accepted under the Code.
Ultimately, due to significant delays, lack of timely evidence, and insufficient substantiation linking the alleged incidents to discrimination under the Code, the HRTO dismissed T.B.’s application.
For more information, see Bartley v. Cancoil Thermal Corporation, 2025 HRTO 730 (CanLII).
