The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) has dismissed a discrimination claim filed by an employee of the University of Ottawa alleging that her job was misclassified and that she faced ongoing harassment based on race, gender, and family status.
The complainant, Dr. S.E.B., alleged that the University of Ottawa, along with the Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa (APUO) and the Support Staff University of Ottawa – Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation (SSUO-OSSTF), misclassified her as a “Professional Technical Officer” rather than recognizing her role as an Associate Professor. She further alleged workplace harassment and attempts to rewrite her job description, which she argued constituted constructive dismissal.
However, the HRTO dismissed the application, ruling that it had “no reasonable prospect of success.” The tribunal determined that the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period stipulated in Ontario’s Human Rights Code and that many allegations were untimely. Additionally, the tribunal found the timely incidents raised did not demonstrate any factual link to protected grounds under the Code.
The tribunal noted the applicant’s claim that she and another colleague, both racialized women from Egypt, had been uniquely misclassified despite performing professorial work. However, the tribunal concluded the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to connect this misclassification or alleged harassment explicitly to race, ancestry, gender, or family status, as required for jurisdiction under the Human Rights Code.
“The applicant strongly believes that an injustice was done to her by being misclassified in her role and that she was subject to harassment and mistreatment as a result,” the tribunal stated. “However, other than her firmly held belief, she has not been able to point to any evidence… to indicate that she was targeted or misclassified because of her race, place of origin or any other Code ground.”
The HRTO also found that the substance of the applicant’s complaint had already been appropriately addressed in grievance proceedings at the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB). Multiple grievances had previously been filed, unsuccessfully addressing issues of alleged misclassification and workplace harassment. The tribunal determined this constituted case splitting and fell squarely within section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, intended to prevent duplicative litigation.
In denying the applicant’s request for recusal based on allegations of bias, the tribunal emphasized the high threshold for establishing bias and concluded there was no evidence that procedural decisions during case management showed any prejudgment of the case. The tribunal further clarified that procedural decisions, such as excluding affidavit evidence during summary hearings, were consistent with established practices.
Regarding timeliness, the tribunal clarified that the applicant’s communications with the respondents in May and June 2020 were not new discriminatory incidents but rather ongoing effects of prior decisions about her job classification, making them insufficient to restart the one-year limitation period.
The applicant’s allegations of harassment included incidents such as being denied office keys, receiving condescending remarks, and having her work edited or unfairly credited to others. However, these incidents were either found to be out of time, unrelated to protected grounds, or previously addressed by grievance proceedings at the OLRB.
Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed the entire application, ruling it had “no reasonable prospect of success” and had already been appropriately addressed through earlier grievance proceedings.
For more information, see El-Bialy v. University of Ottawa, 2025 HRTO 576 (CanLII).
