The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has dismissed a complaint filed by a former employee of Teva Canada Ltd., ruling it lacked jurisdiction to proceed because the applicant had already launched a civil lawsuit based on the same facts and allegations.
In a written decision, the Tribunal found that K.C.L., who represented himself, had filed a civil claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice roughly seven months before submitting his human rights application. The civil action and the application were “duplicative,” and as such, the Tribunal said it was “barred by section 34(11) of the Code.”
The applicant had alleged discrimination in employment based on race, disability and age, as well as reprisal, all contrary to Ontario’s Human Rights Code. The Tribunal, however, said the matter could not proceed under its jurisdiction.
“The language of section 34(11) is mandatory and where engaged, the Tribunal has no discretion to hear the application,” it wrote, citing Corrigan v. Ontario, 2023 ONCA 39.
Parallel proceedings raise risks
K.C.L.’s claims stretch over two decades, beginning with a workplace injury in 2002 that led to a permanent impairment. He was awarded a Non-Economic Loss benefit by the WSIB in 2010.
In both the civil and human rights proceedings, the applicant alleged his disability was met with suspicion and contempt by his employer. He claimed he faced bullying, harassment, and excessive scrutiny over performance, particularly in the years following his injury. While he received modified duties in or around 2008, he said the harassment continued.
He also alleged racial discrimination, citing a co-worker who, for years, publicly questioned the legitimacy of his medical needs and allegedly referred to him as a “lazy Chinese.” He said complaints to management were ignored and he was unfairly disciplined for “yelling” during an altercation.
His employment was terminated in 2022. In both proceedings, the applicant claimed his dismissal was linked to his disability, his requests for accommodation, and reprisals for complaints about discrimination and harassment.
The Tribunal said these allegations were “almost identical in substance and over the same time-period” as those in his civil claim. The court filing includes claims for a declaration that his rights under the Human Rights Code were violated and $40,000 in damages for discrimination, as well as another $40,000 for mental distress, reprisal and harassment.
“The significant duplication between the Application and Civil Claim presents the exact risk to the proper administration of justice that section 34(11) is intended to prevent,” the Tribunal wrote.
Applicant argued Code claims couldn’t be fully addressed in civil court
In response to the Tribunal’s request for additional submissions, the applicant argued that section 34(11) should not apply because the civil suit did not fully address his Code-based claims. He stated the civil proceeding was focused on wrongful dismissal and the tort of intentional infliction of mental distress.
He further argued that due to limitations in the court’s jurisdiction—such as the lack of a civil tort for harassment and limitations under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act—his human rights issues could not be adequately remedied there.
The Tribunal acknowledged the “nuanced” differences between court and tribunal processes, but said it is ultimately up to litigants to choose the most appropriate forum.
“While it may be that neither forum is perfect, the same allegations cannot be pursued in both,” it stated.
Evidence showed applicant knowingly chose civil route
The Tribunal noted that the applicant had legal representation in the civil matter and had provided communications with his lawyer as part of his submissions—waiving solicitor-client privilege in the process.
Those communications showed the applicant was made aware that filing a civil claim could foreclose a Tribunal application. Despite this, he instructed his lawyer to proceed with the lawsuit and confirmed he would not file a Tribunal claim.
“Even absent evidence that as here, indicates a litigant’s choice to pursue a civil proceeding was conscious and informed, the viability of Code-based allegations pled in a civil claim is not relevant,” the Tribunal added.
It pointed to decisions like Morningstar v. Hospitality Fallsview Holding Inc., which affirmed that once a civil claim is filed based on the same facts, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is ousted—even if the strength or outcome of the civil proceeding is uncertain.
Tribunal rejects argument that civil claim is inactive
The applicant’s final submission was that the civil matter was no longer active due to missed deadlines and a lack of communication from counsel following an unsuccessful mediation. However, the Tribunal found no evidence that the civil claim had been withdrawn or dismissed.
“Even if it has been, the Civil Claim was active at the time the Application was filed,” it stated, noting that this alone barred the application under section 34(11)(a) of the Code.
The application was dismissed in its entirety.
For more information, see Li v. Teva Canada Limited, 2025 HRTO 857 (CanLII).
