The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has dismissed a complaint from a former research associate at the University of Toronto, finding no factual link between the applicant’s age and his termination, and ruling the application fell outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
In its decision, the Tribunal concluded that P.S., a 62-year-old former Senior Guidance, Navigation and Control Engineer at the university’s Space Flight Laboratory (SFL), failed to provide any facts to substantiate his claim that age discrimination played a role in his hiring or dismissal.
P.S. was hired in February 2022 and terminated five months later, in June of that year. He alleged that a younger foreign worker was brought in to replace him at a lower wage and with more favourable terms, and that his termination was based in whole or in part on his age. The university denied those claims, stating the new employee was hired for an open research associate position, not as a replacement, and that P.S. was terminated for poor performance.
The Tribunal emphasized that while P.S. identified age as a Code-protected ground and alleged adverse treatment, he failed to present any facts that linked that treatment to his age.
“A bald assertion that the adverse treatment the applicant received was owing to their enumerated grounds is not enough to provide the required factual basis,” the decision said.
Speculative claims insufficient to proceed
The Tribunal issued a Request for Additional Submissions (RAS) to clarify whether the application was within its jurisdiction. In response, P.S. repeated prior claims and added that he believed he was hired precisely because of his age—so that he could later be terminated with minimal legal risk due to his proximity to retirement.
The Tribunal rejected this argument as illogical. “If limiting the potential liability associated with an unsuccessful hire was a relevant consideration… then recruiting and hiring the applicant at 62 years of age would [run] counter to this objective,” the adjudicator wrote.
The decision noted that P.S.’s narrative relied on “speculation and belief,” without presenting any evidence to connect the alleged treatment to his age. It found inconsistencies in his claims, including allegations that he was both hired and fired due to his age, without offering any factual support.
No jurisdiction over general unfairness
While the Tribunal acknowledged P.S. may have been treated unfairly—such as not receiving a performance review or opportunity to address concerns before being terminated—it reiterated that unfair treatment alone does not constitute a breach of the Human Rights Code.
“For the Code to be triggered the conduct must be connected in whole or in part to the applicant’s Code ground, and that connection must have a factual basis,” the adjudicator said.
In the absence of such a connection, the Tribunal ruled that the application did not fall within its jurisdiction and dismissed the case.
For more information, see Sarkar v. University of Toronto, 2025 HRTO 955 (CanLII).
