The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has dismissed an application from a University of Windsor technologist who alleged workplace discrimination, finding that the substance of his complaint had already been fairly and appropriately resolved through arbitration.
The tribunal ruled that G.L.’s application, which claimed he faced discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and place of origin, was barred under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because a prior grievance arbitration addressed the core issues raised. That section permits the tribunal to dismiss an application if another proceeding has “appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.”
“The applicant’s allegations against the University received a fair hearing before the arbitrator through a process that was agreed to by his Union whose role it is to represent his interests,” the tribunal wrote.
Grievance over job description led to job evaluation process
G.L., a technologist and union member at the university, had objected to a revised job description issued in 2014. He claimed that key duties he was regularly performing were excluded, and a grievance was filed by the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1393.
The matter proceeded to a Joint Job Evaluation Committee (JJEC), and ultimately to arbitration under an agreement between the university and the union to resolve a backlog of outstanding job evaluations and related grievances. Arbitrator Jules Bloch was granted jurisdiction to hear all issues related to job evaluations under Article 24 of the collective agreement.
A structured arbitration process was established, with questioning by the arbitrator, deliberation with JJEC members from both the university and the union, and confidential determination of any changes to job descriptions and corresponding Hay ratings.
G.L.’s evaluation was heard in April 2018. He attended and made submissions during the arbitration. While his job score was increased as a result of the process, it was not enough to move him into a higher classification. A letter from the university stated the result was final and binding, as confirmed by the arbitrator.
Allegations of discrimination follow arbitration outcome
Following the arbitration, G.L. alleged that the job evaluation process had been discriminatory and unfair, claiming that he was treated differently from other employees who did not share his racial background or place of origin. He filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in 2019, alleging that he suffered from pay discrimination and unequal treatment.
The university sought dismissal of the application under section 45.1, arguing that the arbitration process had already resolved the core issues. The union, which intervened in the tribunal proceeding, also supported the dismissal.
The tribunal agreed. “The gravamen of his complaint is the exclusion of items from his job description, the score he received on the evaluation vis-à-vis what he views as comparable positions and the financial implication of that score on him,” the decision said.
Tribunal finds arbitration was thorough and fair
The tribunal found that the arbitration process met all the criteria to qualify as “another proceeding” under section 45.1. It involved both G.L. and his manager making submissions, questioning by the arbitrator and JJEC, and a final determination of the job classification.
In making its finding, the tribunal noted that G.L. had the opportunity to make his case and was represented by his union throughout the process. He was also provided with details in advance about how the arbitration would work and what would be expected of him.
In one email to his union dated April 26, 2018, G.L. stated that “this arbitration hearing is a legal procedure, which is at a certain degree similar to the investigation phase in a civil court,” and requested that his written materials be submitted in advance. The union responded that documents would be reviewed during the hearing and encouraged him to raise concerns orally.
Although G.L. later argued that his concerns about discrimination were not properly heard, the tribunal found that his written presentation—over 30 pages in length—raised many of the same issues that formed the basis of his human rights complaint, including references to unfair treatment, lack of transparency, and inconsistent application of policies compared to other employees.
“The applicant seeks to raise the same issues before the Tribunal that were raised in the JJE Arbitration,” the decision said.
No evidence arbitration was invalid
G.L. also argued that the job evaluation order was “faked,” citing the absence of a signature and the fact that the decision was not filed with the Ministry of Labour. The tribunal rejected this claim, noting that while “best practices would certainly dictate that the JJE Award be signed and dated,” the absence of a signature did not invalidate the process or outcome.
The tribunal accepted that the arbitration had occurred as described and that G.L. had actively participated. “The applicant clearly engaged in a process which mirrored the process laid out in the Award,” it said.
Allegations of post-arbitration discrimination also dismissed
G.L. also alleged that the university’s conduct following the arbitration—specifically, its response to his continued objections—was discriminatory. The tribunal rejected that argument as well, finding that these post-arbitration interactions were not new issues, but rather continuations of his dissatisfaction with the job evaluation outcome.
“That the University maintained its position that the JJE Arbitration was a neutral, unbiased process and the resulting Job Evaluation Order was final and binding, does not constitute discrimination under the Code,” the tribunal wrote.
It concluded that allowing the application to proceed would amount to relitigating issues already decided through a fair process, contrary to the principles of finality and judicial economy.
“For the reasons above, I am persuaded that another proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application,” the adjudicator wrote.
For more information, see Li v. University of Windsor, 2025 HRTO 837 (CanLII).
