A Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed a discrimination case filed by a female entertainment industry worker after finding her claims fell outside the one-year filing deadline required under Ontario’s Human Rights Code.
R.M.T., a member of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, filed her application in November 2011 alleging sexual harassment, disability discrimination and reprisal by multiple union locals and entertainment companies. The tribunal ruled that incidents occurring after the filing deadline did not constitute discrimination under the Code, while earlier allegations were filed too late without a valid excuse.
Background of the case
The applicant had previously filed a similar human rights complaint in 2009 against some of the same respondents. That initial case underwent extensive proceedings, including more than 20 hearing days over eight years, before being dismissed in 2017. The tribunal found she had not established harassment or discrimination on a balance of probabilities.
During the initial case, T. attempted multiple times to add new allegations and parties through amendment requests, but these were denied because the case was already well advanced toward hearing. The tribunal determined there were too many differences between the proposed amendments and the original complaint, including different union locals, geographic locations and employers.
The current application was deferred in 2013 until the initial case was resolved. T. continued filing amendment requests throughout this period, seeking to add new parties and allegations. She also pursued judicial reviews of the 2017 decision, which have not proceeded despite being filed years ago.
October 2011 incidents
The only potentially timely allegations in the application related to three incidents on Oct. 15, 2011. The first involved a negative interaction with a union president regarding how the local was handling her grievances about harassment and anti-smoking policies. The second concerned the union president accidentally copying other members on an email about a $100 disciplinary fine against T. The third involved an international union president’s failure to deliver documents ordered by the tribunal in the initial case.
T. argued these incidents constituted discrimination and reprisal under the Code. However, the tribunal found they did not meet the legal definition of discrimination in employment, contracts or membership in a vocational association.
“While it is obvious that the applicant has had concerns in their various workplaces because of their female gender in a male-dominated profession, as well as on the basis of their disability, I cannot find that the incidents of October 15, 2011 meet the definition of discrimination,” the tribunal stated.
The adjudicator noted that while T.’s union may not have advanced her grievances as she wished, “this could not constitute adverse treatment as a form of discrimination based on those stated grounds.” The tribunal found these concerns would have been more appropriately dealt with by the Ontario Labour Relations Board as a potential complaint about unfair union representation.
Jurisdictional requirements
The tribunal emphasized that its jurisdiction is limited to enforcing the Human Rights Code, which only prohibits discrimination based on enumerated grounds in protected social areas. It does not have authority over general allegations of unfairness unrelated to the Code.
To fall within the tribunal’s jurisdiction, an applicant must provide factual basis beyond assertions linking their protected grounds to the respondents’ actions. The tribunal found T. failed to provide any factual basis to connect the alleged adverse treatment to her gender or disability.
“A bald assertion that the adverse treatment they received was owing to their enumerated grounds is not enough to provide the required factual basis,” the decision stated.
Time limit issues
Under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code, the tribunal has no jurisdiction over incidents occurring more than one year before filing unless the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice would result.
The tribunal found no thematic link between the October 2011 incidents and earlier allegations dating back to November 2010. There was nearly a one-year gap between incidents involving different employers, geographic locations, co-workers and union locals.
To establish good faith delay, applicants must provide reasonable explanation for not pursuing their rights under the Code in a timely manner. The tribunal noted T. was aware of the one-year time limit, as evidenced by her request to “proactively waive the one-year time limit” in one amendment application.
“No other explanation was provided as to why the applicant did not file this new Application, which includes those allegations, to protect their rights under the Code, in a timely manner,” the decision found.
Misconceptions about tribunal process
The tribunal addressed what it described as T.’s misunderstanding about how human rights applications work. She appeared to believe that a pending application created “an opportunity to create a rolling list of allegations against any and all work associates, in any and all locations, with any and all employers.”
The tribunal clarified that applications must contain “one clear set of allegations against one or more named respondents based on a single event or a series of related events, the last of which occurred within one year of the date of the filing.”
T. had argued that her multiple applications filed over different years were all connected as part of continuing discrimination. The tribunal rejected this argument, noting that ongoing new allegations are not automatically accepted as amendments to existing applications.
Outstanding amendment requests
The tribunal also denied multiple outstanding amendment requests filed between 2014 and 2024 seeking to add parties, allegations and consolidate files. It found these would cause substantial prejudice to additional respondents given the significant passage of time.
Some requests sought to consolidate the application with cases before other tribunals or with closed human rights files, which the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to do.
The tribunal dismissed the entire application, including any requested amendments or additions.
For more information, see Thomas v. IATSE Local 822, 2025 HRTO 1586 (CanLII).
