The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has found that Academy of Learning Career College and two of its staff discriminated against a long-time employee on the basis of race, place of origin, ethnic origin, sex, gender identity, and age, creating a poisoned work environment and failing to investigate his complaints.
In its decision, the tribunal ordered the college and personal respondents, F.K. and F.S., to jointly pay P.A. $25,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect. It also ordered them to complete mandatory training from the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
“I find that the applicant was subjected to an intolerable work environment that included persistent and repeated harassment related to his enumerated grounds,” the tribunal wrote. “The applicant reported the harassment to the organizational respondent which, rather than investigating the harassment, chose to terminate the applicant’s employment.”
Employee was paid in cash, targeted with derogatory comments
According to the tribunal’s findings, P.A. began working part-time at the college in 2009 and moved to full-time employment in 2012. His employment was terminated on July 4, 2018.
P.A., a Hindu man from India, testified that he was the only Hindu employee and that all other staff were Muslim. He said he was paid in cash, unlike his colleagues, despite requesting to be placed on payroll.
The tribunal accepted as uncontested evidence that one of the personal respondents told him, “Indians are crooked and thieves,” and that was the reason he was not paid like others. P.A. also reported numerous additional discriminatory comments made by both personal respondents, including:
- “Indians are bad at numbers and have no sense about handling money.”
- “Indians are so poor they cannot afford to travel to Florida.”
- “I was glad and thought you moved to the USA forever and we could get rid of Indians like you.”
- “Paresh is not a man but a woman who is in her menopause, that’s the reason you cannot have sex with your wife and your kids don’t resemble you.”
The tribunal found these remarks amounted to harassment on multiple grounds under section 5(2) of the Human Rights Code.
“I find that these comments made by the personal respondents are harassment on the grounds of race, place of origin, ethnic origin, sex, and gender identity,” the decision stated.
Workplace profile altered; no evidence of investigation
P.A. also submitted screenshots showing that his facilitator profile in the college’s system had been altered — listing his status as “Refugee” and his marital status as “Widowed.” While the tribunal agreed the changes were harassing in nature, it found there was not enough evidence to attribute them directly to the individual respondents.
After reporting the harassment to N.K., another college representative, P.A. said no action was taken and that he was subsequently fired. He also alleged that he was forced to sign a resignation letter under duress and was threatened with negative job references.
While the tribunal had previously ruled that the resignation letter did not bar the application from proceeding, it did not rule on the issue of duress due to lack of supporting evidence in this hearing.
Failure to investigate breaches Code obligations
The tribunal reiterated that employers have a legal duty under section 5(1) of the Code to investigate complaints of discrimination and harassment in the workplace. It found the college failed to meet that obligation.
“The applicant complained to the organizational respondent about the harassment he was experiencing in the workplace, but the organizational respondent did not investigate his complaint,” the decision stated. “I find that the organizational respondent breached its duty to reasonably investigate the applicant’s complaint and to provide the applicant with a discrimination-free workplace.”
The tribunal noted there was no evidence of policies, complaint mechanisms, or any training in place to protect employees from harassment or discrimination.
$25,000 award reflects seriousness and duration of harassment
P.A. sought $50,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect. The tribunal ultimately awarded half that amount, noting that while there was significant and repeated harassment, no medical evidence was submitted and no claim for lost wages was made.
“The applicant was subjected to an extended period of harassment over the course of his employment,” the tribunal noted. “His employment was terminated after he complained about the harassment.”
In support of its award, the tribunal cited a series of precedent decisions involving similar findings of a poisoned work environment and failure to investigate.
Mandatory training ordered
In addition to monetary damages, the tribunal ordered both personal respondents and all current members of management at the college to complete the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s eLearning module “Call It Out: Racism, Racial Discrimination and Human Rights” within 30 days. Proof of completion must be submitted to both the applicant and the tribunal.
Post-judgment interest of 6% will apply to any unpaid portion of the award starting 30 days from the decision date, and pre-judgment interest of 1.5% was also ordered from the date of the application in June 2018.
For more information, see Ashar v. Academy of Learning Career College, 2025 HRTO 838 (CanLII).
