Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer breaches employment terms, forcing an employee to resign. This includes significant job changes, a toxic workplace, or unpaid wages, leading to potential legal action. Harassment, which violates the Ontario Human Rights Code and Occupational Health and Safety Act, includes code-base discrimination based on protected attributes, or non-code-based workplace harassment and can manifest through bullying or repeated hostile actions. Both employees and employers should understand their rights and responsibilities to promote a healthy workplace culture and minimize legal risks. Read on to Learn More.
Topics Will be Covered in This Post:
Protection Against Discrimination and Workplace Harassment Under the Human Rights Code
Protection Against Workplace Harassment Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act
Case Study - George v. 1735475 Ontario Limited, 2017 HRTO 761
Relevant Article You May Be Interested In:
What is Constructive Dismissal
Constructive dismissal is a legal concept that arises when an employee resigns due to an employer's conduct, which fundamentally alters the terms of employment. This situation often leads to intricate legal interpretations, as the employer's actions do not constitute a formal termination but instead create an environment where the employee feels compelled to leave.
In Ontario, the Employment Standards Act and the common law govern employment relationships. Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer makes significant changes to essential terms of employment without obtaining the employee's consent. These changes may include a demotion, a substantial reduction in salary, significant changes in job responsibilities, or, in some cases, a toxic work environment.
To successfully claim constructive dismissal, the onus rests on the employee to demonstrate that the employer's actions were sufficiently serious to warrant the resignation. The courts typically assess whether the alterations to the employment agreement were unilateral and whether they fundamentally breached the trust inherent in the employment relationship.
It is crucial for employees considering resignation due to their employer’s conduct to document instances of workplace changes effectively and seek legal counsel. Employers, on the other hand, should be vigilant about ensuring that any alterations to job responsibilities or work conditions are communicated clearly and agreed upon with employees, thereby minimizing the risk of a constructive dismissal claim.
Serious workplace harassment frequently leads to a claim of constructive dismissal. Please keep in mind that in Ontario, a constructive dismissal claim based on workplace harassment producing a toxic working environment might be statutory barred by Section 31 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA) in some circumstances.
Relevant Articles of Interest:
Protection Against Discrimination and Workplace Harassment Under the Human Rights Code
The Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code) confers a broad right to equal treatment in respect of employment, instead of simply prohibiting specific discriminatory acts.
Section 5(1) protects employees against “poisoned work environment” and sets out the broad employment protection as follows:
5 (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.
Section 5(2) prohibits harassment in the workplace:
5 (2) Every person who is an employee has a right to freedom from harassment in the workplace by the employer or agent of the employer or by another employee because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.
However, the protection against harassment under the Code is limited. Section 46.3 (1) states that:
46.3 (1) For the purposes of this Act, except subsection 2 (2), subsection 5 (2), section 7 and subsection 46.2 (1), any act or thing done or omitted to be done in the course of his or her employment by an officer, official, employee or agent of a corporation, trade union, trade or occupational association, unincorporated association or employers’ organization shall be deemed to be an act or thing done or omitted to be done by the corporation, trade union, trade or occupational association, unincorporated association or employers’ organization.
The Human Rights Code protects against harassment as per s. 5 (2) of the Code, but also protect against “poisoned workplace” under the general clause s. 5(1).
Under the Code, an employer is NOT automatically liable to code-based harassment conducts of employees against other employees under s. 5(2) of the Code, unless 1) the harassment is from a senior management or 2) the employer failed to take action to redress the issue, to investigate, and to protect the vulnerable.
But s. 46.3 (1) DOES NOT apply to s. 5(1) of the Code, meaning that if a workplace is deemed to be a “poisoned work environment”, even if the employer did all they can to redress the issue, they are still liable. See George v. 1735475 Ontario Limited, 2017 HRTO 761.
Damages for Termination of Employee in Reprisal Against s. 50 of the OHSA
Learn More About Workplace Harassment and Workplace Discrimination
A Legal Analysis on the Medical Documentation in Disability Cases and the Duty to Accommodate
Age Discrimination vs. Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (BFOR)
Gender Equality – Is Society Giving Equal Rights To Women As Well
Damages for Termination of Employee in Reprisal Against s. 50 of the OHSA
The Unfair Practices Employees Face in San Diego and Ontario and What to Do
Protection Against Workplace Harassment Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act
The Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) specifies the responsibility of workplace parties in the event of workplace violence or harassment. Violence or harassment in the workplace can occur from anybody the worker interacts with, including a client, a customer, a student, a patient, a coworker, an employer, or a supervisor. Alternatively, the individual might be someone who has no formal relationship to the job, such as a stranger or a domestic/intimate partner, but brings violence or harassment into the workplace.
Section 1(1) of OHSA defines what is workplace harassment and what is workplace sexual harassment:
“workplace” means any land, premises, location or thing at, upon, in or near which a worker works;
“workplace harassment” means,
(a) engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace, including virtually through the use of information and communications technology, that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome, or
(b) workplace sexual harassment;
“workplace sexual harassment” means,
(a) engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace, including virtually through the use of information and communications technology, because of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, where the course of comment or conduct is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome, or
(b) making a sexual solicitation or advance where the person making the solicitation or advance is in a position to confer, grant or deny a benefit or advancement to the worker and the person knows or ought reasonably to know that the solicitation or advance is unwelcome;
(c) a statement or behaviour that it is reasonable for a worker to interpret as a threat to exercise physical force against the worker, in a workplace, that could cause physical injury to the worker.
However, there's a limitation clause under OHSA that limits the application of the OHSA against workplace harassment from employer or manager under s. 1(4) - Workplace harassment:
1(4) A reasonable action taken by an employer or supervisor relating to the management and direction of workers or the workplace is not workplace harassment.
Part III.0.I of of the Occupational Health and Safety Act defines the obligations of workplace parties in the event of workplace violence or harassment. Among other things, it requires the implementation of a company-wide anti-harassment and anti-violence policy.
Relevant Articles of Interest:
Part III.0.I: Workplace violence and workplace harassment by the Ministry of Labour
Duty to Investigate and the Sufficiency and Disclosurability of Investigation Reports
Legal Remedies for Workplace Harassment and Discrimination in Ontario
Damages for Termination of Employee in Reprisal Against s. 50 of the OHSA
Click here to contact HTW Law - Employment Lawyer for assistance and legal consultation.
Comparing Workplace Harassment Under the Code and OHSA
Code-based harassment under s. 5(2) of the Human Rights Code (the Code) as distinguished from “workplace harassment” under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).
There are six elements required to establish harassment in the workplace under OHSA, namely:
a course of comment or conduct;
in the workplace;
against a worker;
that is vexatious;
that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome;
unless it is a reasonable action taken by an employer or supervisor relating to the management and direction of workers or the workplace.
There are four elements required to establish harassment in the workplace under s. 5(2) of the Code, namely:
the respondent engaged in a course of vexatious comment or conduct;
at the relevant times the complainant was an employee and the respondent was the employer or agent of the employer;
the comment or conduct complained of was known, or ought reasonably have been known to be unwelcome;
because of a protected ground under the Code.
See Boehm v. National System of Baking Ltd., 1987 CanLII 8515 (ON HRT)
at para. 122 to 133; Ghosh v. Domglas Inc. (No. 2), 1992 CanLII 14247 (ON HRT) at para. 32 to 49.
Both cases have an an in-depth discussion of the 4 elements above. Please note that while both cases deal with the protected ground of disability, the same factors are applied to other protected attributes under the Code as well. The Code did not make it explicit that the conduct complained of must have occurred in the workplace. In fact, "Workplace" is NOT defined in the Code.
The differences between code based “harassment” and workplace harassment under OHSA.
A single incident, if egregious enough (probably have to meet the intentional infliction of emotional suffering threshold), can be considered discrimination under Section 5(1) of the code for creating a poisoned working environment (PWE); while a single incident can NEVER be identified as harassment under OHSA, it can be argued to have contributed to PWE, qualifying for a claim of constructive dismissal, but the comment itself is not recognized as harassment under OHSA.
"Harassment" as defined by OHSA must occur at the workplace, near the workplace, or in the course of carrying out employment obligations, but discrimination under the Code includes off-duty conduct as long as it is between an employee and the employer or an agent of the employer.
The Respondent must have known—or should have reasonably known—that the comment or conduct complained of under the Code was unwelcome. But under OHSA, limited by section 1(3), "harassment" for non-code-based harassment MUST be objectively vexatious. Therefore, under OHSA, a reasonable action taken by an employer or supervisor regarding the management and direction of employees or the workplace can NEVER be considered workplace harassment, even if the employer knew the employee was susceptible to certain types of comments.
Employees alleging harm caused by non-code-based workplace harassment in Court must meet the higher standard of proof of the intentional infliction of mental suffering or claim constructive dismissal due to a poisoned work environment. Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) will NOT make a judgment as to whether harassment under OHSA happened, but only whether an employee has been punished or reprised against under s. 50 of OHSA for filing a claim of workplace harassment or discrimination against his or her superior or colleague. HRTO has no jurisdiction to act on “harassment” unrelated to the Code.
Employee handbooks and workplace policies created in compliance with OHSA Part III.0.I may offer a broader scope of protection and extend safeguards against harassment and violence at work to comments and conducts that don't traditionally qualify as "harassment" under OHSA, especially relating to off-duty comments and conducts. However, the Human Rights Code does not require "harassment" to occur in the workplace under s. 5(2); therefore, many interactions between supervisors and coworkers—even those often regarded as off-duty—are considered actionable under the Code.
Case Study - George v. 1735475 Ontario Limited, 2017 HRTO 761
George v. 1735475 Ontario Limited, 2017 HRTO 761 clarifies and distinguishes between code-based harassment under Section 5(2) of the Code and poisoned working environment under Section 5(1) of the Human Rights Code.
In this case, George filed a claim with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) against his employer, Stan Seto. The HRTO determined that Seto's remarks to George were "egregious" and that George had been exposed to "persistent and repeated" racial remarks, including name calling, and awarded $20,000 against the employer for discrimination.
HRTO found, in para. 64, that:
“it is not the proper role or function of this Tribunal to police workplace conversations about current events, even on difficult topics like the Ferguson shooting or subsequent rioting. Having said that, the comments I have found were made by Mr. Seto were discriminatory when he referred to ‘you people’ and ‘your race,’ meaning people of the same race as the applicant, being ‘stupid.’”
In reaching its conclusion, the HRTO took a deep dive into sections 5(1) and 5(2) of the Human Rights Code:
[51] Protection against harassment in the workplace (as well as in relation to the occupancy of accommodation) was inserted into the Code when this legislation was re-enacted in 1980. In the employment context, for all protected grounds other than sex, this protection is afforded pursuant to s. 5(2) of the Code, with the definition of harassment appearing in s. 10 of the Code. In order to prove harassment, an applicant must establish five things: (1) a “course” of comment or conduct; (2) that is “vexatious” to the applicant; (3) that is “known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome”; (4) that is “because of” a protected ground; and (5) that has been engaged in by the employer, or agent of the employer or by another employee.
[52] The concept of a poisoned work environment as being a violation of human rights legislation arose in the case law in relation to the Code as it existed prior to its re-enactment in 1980. Prior to 1980, the Code did not provide a general protection against discrimination in employment as it does today in s. 5(1). Rather, the Code as it existed at that time protected against discrimination in relation to certain specified aspects of the employment relationship, including “any term or condition of employment.” The case law of the Board of Inquiry (as it was then known) is that where Code-related comments or conduct in the workplace were sufficiently egregious and/or pervasive, that created a poisoned work environment that constituted discrimination in relation to “any term or condition of employment”, in the sense that it effectively became a term or condition of the affected employee’s employment to be required to work in such a poisoned environment. Accordingly, this was found to constitute discrimination in employment contrary to the pre-1980 Code: see for example Dhillon v. F. W. Woolworth Co. Ltd. (1982), 1982 CanLII 4884 (ON HRT), 3 C.H.R.R. D/743; Ahluwalia v. Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police (1983), 1983 CanLII 4719 (ON HRT), 4 C.H.R.R. D/1757; Naraine v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada (No. 4), (1996), 1996 CanLII 20059 (ON HRT), 27 C.H.R.R. D/230, upheld on appeal at Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd., 1999 CanLII 18727 (ON SCDC) rev’d only on remedy at Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v. Naraine, 2001 CanLII 21234 (ON CA).
[57] As a result, in the human rights context, a poisoned work environment will be found in two circumstances:
1) If there has been a particularly egregious, stand-alone incident, [intentional infliction of emotional suffering threshold] or
2) If there has been serious wrongful behaviour sufficient to create a hostile or intolerable work environment that is persistent or repeated [constructive dismissal threshold].
[58] In determining whether or not a poisoned work environment exists, relevant factors include: the number of comments or incidents; their nature; their seriousness; and whether taken together, it had become a condition of the applicant’s employment that she or he must endure discriminatory conduct and comments: [see Crêpe It Up! v. Hamilton, 2014 ONSC 6721 at paras. 18-19].
[59] The distinction between a poisoned work environment [for Code s. 5(1)] and workplace harassment [for Code s. 5(2)] is important both because of the definition of “harassment” in the Code and because of the liability provisions in s. 46.3(1) of the Code. As indicated above, a finding of harassment requires there to have been a “course” of comment or conduct, which forms part of the Code’s definition of harassment. In contrast, as is clear from the Court of Appeal’s decision in [General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. Johnson, 2013 ONCA 502], a poisoned work environment can be found even if there is a single or “stand-alone” incident, if the single incident is particularly egregious.
[60] With regard to the liability provisions in s. 46.3(1) of the Code, a corporate or organizational respondent is not automatically deemed to be liable for acts or omissions of its officers, officials, employees or agents that violate the harassment protections under the Code [s. 5(2)], as the provisions providing protection against harassment have been expressly excluded from deemed liability. Nonetheless, this Tribunal’s case law has held that a corporate or organizational respondent may be held liable in a case of harassment in two circumstances: (1) under the “organic theory of corporate liability”, where the harasser is part of the “directing mind” of the corporate or organizational respondent (see Halliday v. Van Toen Innovations Incorporated, 2013 HRTO 583; Strauss v. Canadian Property Investment Corporation (No. 2), (1995) 1995 CanLII 18191 (ON HRT), 24 C.H.R.R. D/43 at para. 55; and Ghosh v. Domglas (No. 2), (1992) 1992 CanLII 14247 (ON HRT), 17 C.H.R.R. D/216 at para. 54); or (2) where management knew or ought reasonably to have known of the harassment and failed to take appropriate steps to address it (see Laskowska v. Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30 at paras. 51 to 60).
[61] In contrast, the finding of a poisoned work environment constitutes a violation of the general protection against employment discrimination under s. 5(1), which is not exempted from the deemed liability provision in s. 46.3(1) of the Code. The implication of this is that, where a poisoned work environment is found, a corporate or organizational respondent will be deemed to be liable under the Code, without regard to: (1) whether or not the comments or conduct found to create the poisoned work environment were reported to management or whether or not management took reasonable steps to address such comments or conduct; or (2) whether the person(s) responsible for the comments or conduct found to create the poisoned work environment were part of the employer’s “directing mind” or just mere co-workers.
Who are Proper Respondents of a Human Right Code Violation
The following two Supreme Court cases established the analytical framework for identifying the proper respondents to a Human Rights Code violation.
McCormick v. Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, 2014 SCC 39 – the Supreme Court held that employment discrimination could only occur if the respondent was in a position of authority and could force the applicant to endure the impugned conduct as a condition of employment.
In McCormick, control, dependence, working conditions, and remuneration are factors considered to determine whether the Applicant is in an employment relationship with an entity.
British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal v. Schrenk, 2017 SCC 62 – once an employment relationship is found to exist, an array of actors with a sufficient nexus are deemed proper respondents to the Human Rights Code complaint.
In Schrenk, the Supreme Court held that in determining whether there is a sufficient nexus, the Court indicated that a Tribunal must conduct a “contextual analysis that considers all the relevant circumstances”, and proposed a non-exhaustive list of factors, including:
whether the respondent was integral to the applicant’s workplace (Type 1 actors);
whether the impugned conduct occurred in the applicant’s workplace (Type 2 actors);
whether the applicant’s work performance or work environment was negatively affected (Type 3 actors).
In short, the Supreme Court suggests the following analytical framework to determine a Tribunal’s jurisdiction over an employment discrimination (Code s.5(1)) or harassment matter (Code s. 5(2)):
(a) Is the applicant in an “employment relationship” marked by control and dependency?
(b) If so, does the respondent’s impugned conduct have a "sufficient nexus" with the employment relationship?
British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal v. Schrenk, 2017 SCC 62, set up the stage, which basically states that as long as the Applicant is an employee or an in employee-like relationship, three types of actors are proper respondents to a Human Rights Tribunal claim.
Type 1 actors include parties who act like an employer by controlling the terms and conditions of work related to a given position. This includes:
(a) volunteer or unpaid work cases: cases in which organizations are found to be proper respondents under s. 5, despite the applicant not being remunerated by the organization; and (Rocha v. Pardons and Waivers of Canada, 2012 HRTO 2234 (CanLII); Roberts v. St. Leonard’s Community Services, 2014 HRTO 1283 at para 8; Sprague v. Yufest, 2016 HRTO 642 (CanLII) at para 10.)
(b) dependent contractor cases: cases in which organizations have been held liable as “de facto employers” under s. 5 because of their control over dependent contractors. (Sutton v. Jarvis Ryan Associates, 2010 HRTO 2421 (CanLII) at para. 98; Szabo v. Poley, 2007 HRTO 37 (CanLII); Garofolo v. Cavalier Hair Stylists Shop Inc., 2013 HRTO 170 (CanLII); Prado Pereda v. Trustworthy Services Inc., 2014 HRTO 383 (CanLII); Staniforth v. CJ Liquid Waste Haulage, 2009 HRTO 717 (CanLII).)
Type 2 actors include parties who are involved in setting terms and conditions of work alongside a principal employer. This includes:
(a) unions: cases in which unions are held liable under s. 5 for formulating or approving work rules or conditions in coordination with an employer; (Central Okanagan School District No 23 v. Renaud, [1992] 2 SCR 970.)
(b) employment agencies: cases in which employment agencies have been held liable under s. 5 for their role in formulating or approving work rules or conditions; (Kosovic v. Niagara Caregivers and Personnel Ltd, 2013 HRTO 433 (CanLII); Payne v. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Company Limited et al, 2002 CanLII 46516 (Ont Bd Inq))
(c) disability management companies: cases where disability management companies are found to be proper respondents when exercising delegated responsibilities to approve accommodation requests; and (Sharma v. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 1678 at para. 60)
(d) assignment employee cases: cases in which organizations have been held liable as “de facto employers”, despite not having a formal employment relationship with an employee, but because they control work rules and conditions at the worksite. (Loomba v. Home Depot Canada, 2010 HRTO 1434 (CanLII); Foster v. Domclean Ltd, 2012 HRTO 1226 (CanLII))
Type 3 actors include parties who do not set terms and conditions of work, but who are otherwise capable of adversely affecting the workplace and are parties with whom a worker is required to have contact in the course of employment. This includes:
(a) co-workers: cases in which a co-worker is found liable under section 5 for harassment directed at another co-worker, where both employees share the same employer; and (Baisa v. Skills for Change, 2010 HRTO 1621 (CanLII); Harriott v. National Money Mart, 2010 HRTO 353 (CanLII))
(b) shared work environment cases: cases in which a worker (and the worker’s employer) is found liable under section 5 for harassment directed at another worker, where both do not share the same employer, but a common work environment. (Sutherland v. Bradstock, 2011 HRTO 619 (CanLII); Loomba v. Home Depot Canada, 2010 HRTO 1434 (CanLII); Kuti v. Bondfield Construction Co. Ltd., 2018 HRTO 478.)
The take home message after McCormick and Schrenk is that in order to initiate a case against the responding parties, at least one of the parties must be a type 1 actor mentioned above. Once that’s established, as long as the respondent is either a type 2 or type 3 actors, they are proper parties to be sued under the Human Rights Code.
Relevant Article You Might be Interested In:
Additional Information – Section 2 (Respondents) by Human Rights Legal Support Centre (HRLSC) (talks about Code Respondents in details).
Where to Sue for Workplace Harassment
Relevant Articles You Might be Interested In:
A. Mediation
In an ideal scenario, individuals should first file a complaint with HR regarding workplace harassment and discrimination, aiming for internal resolution. If unsuccessful, seeking legal assistance to address the issue with the employer is advisable. To help you with this, you should speak with an employment lawyer who is familiar with cases involving workplace harassment.
Relevant Articles of Interest:
B. Litigation
Unfortunately, not every case can be resolved by a quick settlement. There are mainly two legal forums to sue for workplace harassment or discrimination:
Courts
Administrative Tribunals (HRTO, OLRB, etc.)
I. Pros and Cons of Resolving the Workplace harassment matter in Court
The maximum amount that can be pursued in Courts is considerably higher than in an administrative tribunal.
For example, you can sue for reasonable notice for constructive dismissal and intentional infliction of emotional distress, which are common law reliefs that can only be sought in court.
Navigating a dispute in Court can be a lengthy ordeal, fraught with mounting costs at every turn. If you lose, your employer’s counsel will seek a cost judgment against you for legal fees. Even victory necessitates a grueling enforcement process—one that is costly, time-consuming, mentally taxing, and uncertain.
Time Limit: Usually, you have two years from the last instance of workplace harassment to file a lawsuit in Court under the Limitations Act, 2002. However, there's no time limit for a lawsuit involving sexual harassment in Court.
Turnaround Time: Parties must independently arrange and finance their mediation process. Most cases take several years to resolve in Court if mediation does not successfully address the issues involved.
How to File a Claim in Court:
Small claims court - suing someone (for situations when $35,000 or less is involved)
Civil claims: suing and being sued in Superior Court (for situations when more than $35,000 is involved)
II. Pros and Cons of Resolving the Workplace harassment matter in Administrative Tribunals (OLRB, HRTO, etc.)
There’re no court fees in administrative tribunals, and should your case be dismissed, there are no adverse cost judgments against you from the other side. Mediation services are also provided at no charge. Employers are required to pay if the Tribunal rules in your favour. Assistance in enforcement can be sought at no additional cost.
However, it is essential to note that significant damage awards are exclusively reserved for the Courts, and recovery amounts in administrative tribunals are limited.
i. Administrative Tribunal - Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB)
The OLRB is an independent administrative tribunal that can review a worker’s reprisal complaint or a referral from the Ministry of Labour.
An employee is terminated in reprisal when he or she is terminated shortly after he or she voiced a complaint to the management or after trying to enforce his or her employment law rights guaranteed under s. 50 of OHSA.
Limitations: The OLRB exclusively addresses reprisal claims, not discrimination issues such as failure to accommodate or other Human Rights Code violations
Time Limit: The OLRB expects workers to file reprisal complaints in a timely manner. If a complaint is not filed within one year, the employer may be presumed to be prejudiced, and the worker will need to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Unless in extraordinary circumstances, no reprisal claim can be filed after two years.
Turnaround Time: The OLRB will provide complimentary mediation services at no cost to the parties within one to two months in most cases following the claim's submission. Most cases can be resolved within 12 to 18 months if mediation does not successfully address the issues involved.
How to File a s.50 termination in reprisal claim to OLRB:
ii. Administrative Tribunal - Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO)
The HRTO is an independent administrative tribunal that handles workplace harassment and discrimination complaints under the Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code).
In Ontario, s. 5 of the Human Rights Code expressly prohibits employment-related discrimination and harassment because of protected attributes such as race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.
Limitations: The HRTO exclusively addresses discrimination and harassment, as well as failures to accommodate, based on protected attributes as outlined in the Code, lacking jurisdiction over non-Code-related matters.
Time Limit: Individuals have one year from the most recent code violation to submit a claim, with no exceptions, including those related to sexual harassment.
Turnaround Time: The HRTO will provide complimentary mediation services at no cost to the parties ranging from 12 to 15 months following the claim's submission. Due to the backlog at HRTO, the turnaround time is similar to that of the Court if mediation does not successfully address the issues involved.
How to File a Discrimination Claim to Human Rights Tribunal (HRTO):
Conclusion
Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer fundamentally breaches the terms of employment, compelling an employee to resign. This can arise from significant changes in job duties, a toxic work environment, or failure to pay wages. Employees facing such conditions may seek legal recourse for reasonable notice, asserting their right to a workplace that meets both safety and contractual standards.
Harassment encompasses unwanted and vexatious behavior that violates the Ontario Human Rights Code and /or the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). It includes code-base discrimination based on protected attributes such as race, gender, or disability, or non-code-based workplace harassment and can manifest through bullying or repeated hostile actions. Employers have a legal obligation to prevent and address harassment, fostering a safe work environment.
Employees must know their rights and responsibilities, while employers must ensure compliance with legislative frameworks to minimize liability and promote a healthy workplace culture. Read on to Learn More.
Workplace discrimination is not just an issue of inequality but one that has deep and lasting impacts on physical and mental health. The chronic stress caused by discriminatory practices worsens health conditions and contributes to the development of serious mental diseases.
A Case Law Analysis of How Much Notice Is Reasonable Following Termination Without Cause
Learn More About Employment Contract
Learn More about Federally Regulated Employee
If you’ve been a victim of workplace harassment and discrimination, wrongful dismissal or constructive dismissal don't wait or there might be serious health implications to your mental and physical health.
You may want to consult with an experienced employment law firm, such as HTW Law, to learn about your employment law rights and your legal options.
With the right legal support, employees can navigate the challenges of unfair practices and work towards a more equitable and respectful work environment.
You don't have to fight the battle alone. Speaking with an employment lawyer who is familiar with the laws and regulations regarding workplace harassment and disability discrimination, and constructive dismissal will go a long way. If you are in doubt, it's essential that you reach out for help as soon as possible right away.
Click here to contact HTW Law - Employment Lawyer for assistance and legal consultation.