A Thunder Bay police officer’s multiple human rights complaints alleging reprisal have been dismissed by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario after the adjudicator found the claims lacked sufficient factual basis to establish jurisdiction.
M.N., a member of the Thunder Bay Police Service diagnosed with depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder, filed four applications between January 2022 and February 2023. While his initial discrimination complaint will proceed, three subsequent reprisal applications were thrown out.
The tribunal found M.N. failed to provide adequate evidence that various workplace incidents occurred because he had filed human rights complaints, as required under section 8 of the Human Rights Code.
Original discrimination allegations
M.N.’s first application detailed incidents starting in 2019 involving Sergeant T.P., who allegedly yelled at him and criticized his policing practices. M.N. claimed this harassment, supported by senior administration including Inspector R.G., H.W. and Chief S.H., led to his PTSD diagnosis and several brief leaves of absence.
The application alleged Inspector R.G. kept “a list of officers on mental health leave on a white board in his office” and that he “along with senior administration, openly calls officers on mental health leave ‘broken toys’ on ‘sad leave.'”
When M.N. requested a transfer in September 2020, Inspector R.G. allegedly denied the request and warned he would face insubordination charges under the Police Services Act if he raised the matter again.
Reprisal claims lack factual foundation
The tribunal dismissed M.N.’s three reprisal applications, finding they failed to meet the legal threshold for establishing jurisdiction.
In his second application, M.N. alleged reprisal through the cancellation of his GreenShield benefits while on WSIB, continued service of court subpoenas despite his mental health condition, and requirements to use vacation time while on disability leave.
The third application claimed reprisal when a sergeant attempted to discuss his applications with a proposed witness, when Staff Sergeant M.D. made comments about returning him to work, and when Acting Chief D.T. removed time from his time bank.
His fourth application alleged the Thunder Bay Police Association and its counsel K.R. engaged in reprisal by initially refusing to pursue grievances, then requesting his health records while later representing the association against him.
Legal standard not met
The tribunal explained that before reprisal allegations can proceed, an applicant must provide “a factual basis for his belief that the respondent acted or threatened to take action against him because he asserted his rights under the Code.”
The adjudicator noted that “a bare assertion that the respondents took the actions they did because the applicant stood up for his rights is insufficient to establish this factual basis.”
In response to the tribunal’s direction to provide submissions on jurisdiction, M.N. submitted he had “provided specific evidence, pointed to dates of all allegations and provided specific quotes all pointing to a systematic effort by the respondents to damage the applicant’s reputation, bar him from career advancement, isolate him from colleagues and peers and exacerbate his disability.”
However, the tribunal found M.N. “provided almost no specific dates or specific quotations, and those that were provided do not suggest any ‘systematic effort’ to punish him as alleged.”
Criminal charges irrelevant
M.N. attempted to bolster his case by referencing criminal charges against some respondents, arguing this demonstrated their “desperate efforts to minimize exposure to numerous legal proceedings.”
The tribunal firmly rejected this approach, stating: “The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the respondents’ criminal charges. They appear to have little or nothing to do with the allegations of discrimination and reprisal before the Tribunal.”
Personal respondents removed
The tribunal also removed nine individual respondents from the discrimination case, leaving only the Thunder Bay Police Service Board as the organizational respondent.
Applying established precedent, the adjudicator found no compelling reason to maintain individual respondents when the board could adequately respond to and remedy any code violations. The tribunal noted that under section 46.3 of the Human Rights Code, corporate respondents are generally deemed liable for acts by their officers in the course of employment.
M.N. had argued the personal respondents’ conduct was “so egregious that they could not be said to have been acting in compliance with workplace policies,” but failed to identify specific egregious conduct or explain why individual remedies would be necessary.
Case continues on discrimination
While three of M.N.’s four applications were dismissed, his original discrimination complaint alleging harassment and discrimination based on disability will proceed to a hearing on the merits.
The tribunal emphasized that at the pre-hearing stage, when considering jurisdiction, it accepts the applicant’s version of events as true. The respondents dispute M.N.’s characterization of events and deny their conduct contravened the Human Rights Code.
The case highlights the importance of establishing clear factual connections between protected human rights activity and subsequent adverse treatment when alleging reprisal under provincial human rights legislation.
For more information, see Nordal v. Thunder Bay (Police Service Board), 2025 HRTO 1484 (CanLII).
