In a landmark decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) has clarified how discrimination cases should be handled in relation to ongoing effects of past discriminatory acts.
The ruling, which could reshape how discrimination complaints are addressed in the province, stems from a case involving a Chinese immigrant worker who filed a complaint against the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).
The worker was injured in a workplace accident in 2006 shortly after arriving in Canada. After his injury prevented him from performing physical labour, the WSIB developed a retraining plan that included English language training and preparation for retail sales work.
However, the worker alleged that the WSIB discriminated against him based on his nationality by reducing his English as a Second Language (ESL) training from 25 weeks to 16 weeks and repeatedly confirming his eligibility for retail work without offering additional language support.
Despite completing the training, the worker struggled to find employment, with one retail store manager concluding that he was unsuitable for customer service during a co-op placement.
The central issue in this case was whether the WSIB’s periodic reviews of the worker’s Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits constituted new acts of discrimination or were merely the continuing effects of the original 2011 decision. The worker filed his complaint in 2020, well beyond the one-year limitation period typically required for discrimination claims.
In its ruling, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint as untimely, emphasizing the distinction between “continuing contraventions” and the “confirmation of a previous decision.” The HRTO emphasized that a continuing contravention requires multiple discrete discriminatory acts, not merely the ongoing effects of a single past decision.
The Tribunal determined that the WSIB’s subsequent reviews of the worker’s benefits were simply confirming their original 2011 decision rather than creating new instances of discrimination. This meant the one-year limitation period for filing a complaint began with the original 2011 decision and was not reset by later benefit reviews.
This ruling provides important clarity for both workers and employers about how limitation periods apply in discrimination cases, a news release noted. It establishes that when an administrative body reviews its past decisions as part of its statutory duties, such reviews don’t automatically create new grounds for discrimination claims.
The decision suggested that claimants must be vigilant about filing their complaints within one year of the original discriminatory act, rather than waiting for subsequent reviews or continuing effects to manifest. However, the worker in this case did not provide such an explanation, reinforcing the necessity of filing complaints within the appropriate timeframe.
The Tribunal also noted that while exceptions to the one-year limitation period are possible if an applicant can provide a good-faith explanation for the delay, no such explanation was provided in this case.
Do you have something to say about this story? Let us know in the comments below.
