A paramedic’s human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability against the Corporation of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell has been dismissed by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) for being filed out of time and lacking merit.
The applicant, S.F., who worked as a casual paramedic, claimed that an arm injury sustained on June 18, 2019, led to unfair seniority calculations, impacting his work opportunities. S.F. alleged that the respondent’s application of a seniority calculation method—the “20-week rule”—during his Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) leave and subsequent modified duties was discriminatory. He claimed the calculation resulted in fewer seniority hours compared to peers, thus negatively affecting shift assignments and promotion opportunities.
Background and allegations
Under the collective agreement between the Corporation and CUPE Local 7911, casual paramedics accrue seniority based on hours worked. The agreement included a specific provision (the “20-week rule”) designed to protect seniority during medical or WSIB-related leaves by averaging hours worked over the preceding 20 weeks prior to leave. This ensures seniority continues to accrue despite absences.
S.F. was off work due to his injury from June 18 to July 30, 2019, returning under modified duties until March 2024. He argued that his seniority ranking suffered because the 20-week calculation gave him fewer hours than a comparable employee, thus alleging discrimination based on disability.
The Corporation maintained that the seniority calculation was neutral, fairly negotiated with the union, and consistently applied. It emphasized the rule’s purpose—to avoid seniority loss due to medical absences—and argued that S.F.’s claims were unfounded as he continued accruing seniority during his leave.
Tribunal’s decision on timeliness
The HRTO first addressed the issue of timeliness. Applications must be filed within one year of the alleged discrimination or the last incident in a series. S.F. filed his application on October 9, 2020, more than one year after the key date identified by the Tribunal, September 14, 2019—the posting date of the seniority list reflecting the 20-week rule calculation.
The Tribunal found S.F.’s argument—that discussions in early 2020 constituted part of a series of discriminatory incidents—unpersuasive, ruling these were merely “continuing effects” rather than new discriminatory events. It further rejected the claim that S.F.’s delay was justified by a misunderstanding, noting that S.F. had union representation and legal counsel available much earlier. Thus, the Tribunal concluded the application was filed nearly 56 weeks late without adequate justification, making it untimely and outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Merit of discrimination claims
Even if timely, the HRTO stated the application would fail on merits, highlighting that the “20-week rule” was a neutral seniority calculation method applied fairly to all employees, regardless of medical leaves or disabilities.
The Tribunal distinguished this case from precedent cited by S.F. (Ontario Nurses’ Association v. Orillia Soldiers Memorial Hospital), noting the rule here explicitly preserved, rather than eliminated, seniority during medical absences. It emphasized that the calculation based on pre-leave hours prevented any negative impact from disability-related absences.
The Tribunal further noted that S.F.’s seniority actually improved during his leave and accommodated return to work, eventually leading to promotion to full-time status. Therefore, it ruled there was no reasonable prospect of establishing a violation of human rights under the Code.
For more information, see Fortin v. Corporation of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell, 2025 HRTO 546 (CanLII).
