Both actions stemmed from manager's harassment about worker’s religion
The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed a workplace discrimination application by a who alleged that his manager persistently encouraged him to convert to Christianity, finding that the matter had already been appropriately addressed in a labour complaint.
The worker, who identified as Hindu, claimed that his manager frequently harassed him about converting to Christianity. The worker quit his job and, on March 7, 2022, filed a complaint to the Ontario Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development, alleging that his employer had breached the province’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA), due to the manager’s behaviour.
An employment standards officer investigated the worker’s complaint and determined that the worker’s manager had "continuously harassed, intimidated, belittled and picked upon" the worker, forcing the worker to resign and resulting in constructive dismissal. Since this was a contravention of the ESA, the officer ordered the employer to compensate the worker with two weeks’ termination pay, amounting to $1,664.01.
Two days after the employment standards officer’s decision, on May 13, 2022, the worker filed a human rights application, contending that the manager’s actions constituted discrimination based on creed, in violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code.
Discrimination, harassment complaint
The employer argued that the worker’s human rights application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the code, which allows the tribunal to reject cases that have been "appropriately dealt with" in another proceeding. The employer pointed to the employment standards officer’s decision, which it argued dealt with the same matter raised in the human rights application and resolved it.
The tribunal noted that the purpose of s. 45.1 of the code was to “prevent duplication of proceedings and re-litigation of issues already determined in another forum” and someone who is displeased with the outcome of another proceeding can’t seek a better outcome for the same matter with the tribunal.
The tribunal also pointed out that, in several previous decisions, it had determined that an investigation and decision by an employment standards officer from the ministry constituted a “proceeding” under s. 45.1 of the code and such officers have jurisdiction to consider allegations of discrimination under the code.
The tribunal found that the issue in the worker’s human rights application – whether the worker’s manager harassed him about his religion – was the same issue addressed in the employment standards complaint. Therefore, the only factor that could allow the tribunal to proceed with the application was if the prior proceeding was unfair or it would be unfair to use the results of the employment standards decision as a reason to bar the worker’s human rights application.
Duplication of proceedings
The tribunal determined that the worker knew the case he had to meet and did meet it. The worker was successful in his employment standards complaint, obtaining a finding of harassment due to his religion and constructive dismissal.
If the worker felt the award of $1,664.01 wasn’t enough compensation for his pain and suffering, then the proper procedure would be to appeal the decision to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the next step in the employment standards complaint process, said the tribunal, adding that the worker was given the opportunity to make submissions to the officer and there was no evidence that the procedure was unfair.
“The procedural or substantive correctness of the previous proceeding is not meant to be bait for another tribunal with a concurrent mandate,” said the tribunal. It also found that allowing the human rights application to move forward would amount to a re-hearing of the same issues, potentially leading to contradictory rulings - an outcome s. 45.1 of the code seeks to prevent.
The tribunal dismissed the worker’s human rights application because its substance was appropriately dealt with in another proceeding. See Joshi v. Nyoni, 2025 HRTO 287.
