Tribunal looked at whether the WSIB appropriately addressed worker's complaint
The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed a worker’s application alleging discrimination based on disability because the matter had already been appropriately dealt with by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).
On Nov. 1, 2019, the worker made a vacation request to her employer for February 2020. The employer denied the request. She promptly filed a complaint with the Ontario Ministry of Labour over the time off denial.
An employment standards officer investigated and determined that there was no violation of the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) in relation to the timing of vacation. The worker didn’t appeal the decision, but the same day – Dec. 27 – she filed a human rights application alleging that the vacation request denial was a failure to accommodate her disability.
Workers’ compensation claim
On Feb. 17, 2020, she submitted a Worker’s Report of Injury claim for chronic mental distress because she felt overwhelmed from a large workload stemming from a colleague being on vacation. Her claim alleged that the employer harassed and intimidated her because of her filing the human rights and WSIB claim, and intimidated her because it was done in front of other people.
The next day, she told her supervisor that she was going to see her doctor and request a stress leave from Feb. 24 to March 9.
On March 16, 2020, the WSIB issued a decision finding no harassment or abuse by the employer, stating that the employer’s decision to deny the worker could be a failure to accommodate, but it was part of the employment function and wasn’t workplace harassment.
The worker didn’t file an objection to the WSIB decision and instead pursued the human rights application.
Duplication of proceeding
The tribunal noted that s. 45.1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code allows the tribunal to dismiss an application if “another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.” It had been established in jurisprudence that another proceeding appropriately dealt with a matter if it’s in the interest of the public and the parties that the decision can be relied on, and it’s important to respect a judicial or administrative decision and avoid re-litigation of issues, the tribunal said, adding that challenging a decision should be done through the appeal or review mechanisms set out for that particular process.
The tribunal found that the worker had previously submitted a complaint to the Ministry of Labour concerning the same denial of time off. An employment standards officer investigated and found no violation of employment standards. Subsequently, the worker filed a claim with the WSIB alleging chronic mental distress linked to the denied time off, and the WSIB also rejected her claim, finding not evidence of harassment.
The tribunal also found that the WSIB proceedings had concurrent jurisdiction to assess human rights matters, the legal issue before the tribunal was substantially the same as that considered by the WSIB, and the worker had been given sufficient opportunity to present her case.
In addition, there was no evidence that the WSIB process was unfair or improperly conducted, said the tribunal.
Having determined that the matter was appropriately dealt with by the WSIB, the tribunal dismissed the worker’s application under s. 45.1 of the code. See McLeod v. Direct Coil Incorporated, 2025 HRTO 1112.
