Archive for the ‘Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’ Category

Divisional Court Dismissed Judicial Review of Weilgosh – HRTO continues to have Concurrent Jurisdiction over Human Rights Matters for Unionized Employees alongside Labour Arbitrators in Ontario

Posted: March 15, 2024 in Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Jurisdiction
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

On October 10, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada released their decision in Northern Regional Health Authority v. Horrocks.[i] With respect to Manitoba and that particular statutory regime and legislative history, the Supreme Court found that labour arbitrators have exclusive jurisdiction of human rights issues arising in the workplace for unionized employees.

After this decision was released, there was commentary suggesting that the same would hold true for Ontario – namely that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario does not have jurisdiction over human rights matters for unionized employees, and labour arbitrators had exclusive jurisdiction. I authored a blog along with Paul Champ and David Baker wherein we argued that Horrocks would not displace concurrent jurisdiction in Ontario and the Human Rights Tribunal would continue to have jurisdiction concurrently with labour arbitrators in unionized workplaces. You can read that blog article here.

The question of whether labour arbitrators had exclusive jurisdiction or concurrent jurisdiction for unionized employees in provincially regulated workplaces in Ontario came before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in 2022 in a case called Weilgosh v. London District Catholic School Board.[ii] The matter was heard by a three-member panel of the Tribunal.[iii] The Tribunal released its decision on October 4, 2022 and found that an arbitrator appointed under the Labour Relations Act[iv] “has exclusive jurisdiction to decide claims of discrimination and harassment falling within the scope of a collective agreement in Ontario, subject to a clear legislative intent to displace this exclusive jurisdiction…”[v]

Next, the Tribunal turned to whether there was clear legislative intent to displace this exclusive jurisdiction, noting that the provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code “are less clear than the British Columbia and federal status, but the legislative history plainly shows that the Legislature contemplated concurrency”.[vi] The Tribunal also noted that the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld concurrent jurisdiction between labour arbitrators and the Tribunal in Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v. Naraine,[vii] even though Naraine was decided prior to the amendments to the Code in Ontario in 2008.

The Tribunal found that “the language used in the Code signals a legislative intent that the Tribunal maintains concurrent jurisdiction” and “despite being presumptively aware of the decisions in Weber and Naraine, and the fact that the Tribunal had continued to hear cases arising from collective agreements, the Legislature did not take steps to limit or narrow the deferral and dismissal powers in sections 45 and 45.1. This signals a clear intent to permit Tribunal decision-makers the power to decide whether to defer applications that could be decided elsewhere, including by arbitration, by grievance, by review or otherwise”.[viii] Where the Legislature chose to limit the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in other cases, it expressly did so. The Tribunal concluded that there “is a clear legislative intent to carve out concurrent jurisdiction for the Tribunal to decide claims of discrimination and harassment under the Code.”[ix]

The London Catholic School Board sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in Weilgosh to the Divisional Court. On Wednesday, the Divisional Court released its decision (London District Catholic School Board v. Weilgosh)[x] dismissing the judicial review. Justice Backhouse, writing for the Divisional Court panel, wrote at paragraph 66:

In considering the broad language used in the Ontario Code, its statutory scheme and the broader legal context of the legislative and jurisprudential history of the Ontario Code, the HRTO correctly applied Horrocks to find concurrent jurisdiction. In the words of Horrocks, in these circumstances, applying an exclusive arbitral jurisdiction model would defeat, not achieve, the legislative intent.

Concurrent jurisdiction remains in Ontario and unionized employees can choose to grieve, file an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, or both (although the latter will be deferred pending the former in this scenario).

It is possible that the London Catholic School Board will seek leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal, but that seems unlikely in my view.

[i]  Northern Regional Health Authority v. Horrocks, 2021 SCC 42

[ii] Weilgosh v. London District Catholic School Board, 2022 HRTO 1194

[iii] In the vast majority of cases, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario appoints one adjudicator to determined a case. The appointment of three adjudicators signals the importance of the matter before the Tribunal. The three adjudicators appointed to hear this matter were Jeanie Theoharis, Marla Burstyn, and Anthony Tamburro.

[iv] Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, C.1

[v] Weilgosh at paragraph 18.

[vi] Weilgosh at paragraph 36.

[vii] Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v. Naraine, 2001 CanLII 21234 (ON CA)

[viii] Weilgosh at paragraph 41.

[ix] Weilgosh at paragraph 46.

[x] London District Catholic School Board v. Weilgosh, 2023 ONSC 3857

HRTO Releases Weilgosh – Tribunal has Concurrent Jurisdiction for Unionized Employees

Posted: October 5, 2022 in Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Jurisdiction
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Northern Regional Health Authority v. Horrocks[i] (“Horrocks”) was released on October 10, 2021. Since its release there has been extensive commentary on whether or not Horrocks applies in Ontario. If found to apply, it would oust the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“the Tribunal”) in favour of labour arbitrators with respect to unionized employees in provincially-regulated workplaces.

Shortly after Horrocks was released, I co-authored a blog along with Paul Champ and David Baker – you can read it here. Our view was that Horrocks did not apply in Ontario and the Tribunal retained concurrent jurisdiction with respect to human rights matters. That question was considered by a three-member panel[ii] of the Tribunal on May 11, 2022 in a case called Weilgosh v. London District Catholic School Board[iii] and the Tribunal released its decision today.

Applying the test in Horrocks, the Tribunal in Weilgosh found that an arbitrator appointed under the Labour Relations Act[iv] “has exclusive jurisdiction to decide claims of discrimination and harassment falling within the scope of a collective agreement in Ontario, subject to a clear legislative intent to displace this exclusive jurisdiction…”[v]

Next the Tribunal turned to whether there was clear legislative intent to displace this exclusive jurisdiction, noting that the provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code “are less clear than the British Columbia and federal statutes, but the legislative history plainly shows that the Legislature contemplated concurrency”.[vi] The Tribunal also noted that the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld concurrent jurisdiction between labour arbitrators and the Tribunal in Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v. Naraine,[vii] even though Naraine was decided prior to the amendments to the Code in Ontario in 2008.

The Tribunal found that “the language used in the Code signals a legislative intent that the Tribunal maintains concurrent jurisdiction” and “despite being presumptively aware of the decisions in Weber and Naraine, and the fact that the Tribunal had continued to hear cases arising from collective agreements, the Legislature did not take steps to limit or narrow the deferral and dismissal powers in sections 45 and 45.1. This signals a clear intent to permit Tribunal decision-makers the power to decide whether to defer applications that could be decided elsewhere, including by arbitration, by grievance, by review or otherwise.”[viii] Where the Legislature chose to limit the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in other cases, it expressly did so.

The Tribunal concluded that there “is a clear legislative intent to carve out concurrent jurisdiction for the Tribunal to decide claims of discrimination and harassment under the Code.”[ix]

The takeaway in Ontario is the status quo. Unionized employees in provincially-regulated workplaces in Ontario who allege discrimination can choose to file a grievance or pursue an application to the Tribunal without their union.

Several matters for unionized employees already before the Tribunal (many of which are out of time to file a grievance) have been deferred awaiting the Weilgosh decision. Those applicants will now be able to move forward and have their applications heard on their merits.  

ENDNOTES

[i] Northern Regional Health Authority v. Horrocks, 2021 SCC 42 (Link to decision here)

[ii] In the vast majority of cases, the Tribunal wil appoint one adjudicator to hear a case. The appointment of adjudicators signals the importance of this decision. The three adjudicators appointed were Jeanie Theoharis, Marla Burstyn, and Anthony Tamburro

[iii] Weilgosh v. London District Catholic School Board, 2022 HRTO 1194

[iv] Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 (Link to statute here)

[v] Weilgosh at para 18.

[vi] Weilgosh at para 36.

[vii] Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v. Naraine, 2001 CanLII 21234 (ON CA) (Link to decision here)

[viii] Weilgosh at para 41.

[ix] Weilgosh at para 46.

Human Rights in Ontario post-Horrocks

Posted: October 25, 2021 in Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Jurisdiction
Tags: , , , , , , ,
3

By:     Wade Poziomka, Paul Champ & David Baker

Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in Northern Regional Health Authority v. Horrocks, 2021 SCC 423. Since its release, some commentary on this decision has claimed that the jurisdiction of human rights tribunals is ousted in favour of labour arbitrators with respect to unionized employees.

While this may be the case for unionized employees in Manitoba, a careful review of this decision indicates this is likely not the case in other jurisdictions, including Ontario. The Court held that the mere existence of a competing tribunal is insufficient to displace labour arbitration as the sole forum for disputes arising out of collective agreement, but it specifically recognized that an expression of legislative intent can still confer concurrent jurisdiction. Ideally this intent should be explicitly stated, however even absent specific language, the statutory scheme may disclose that intention. This is found at paragraph 33 of the decision, wherein the Court lists some statutory provisions by way of example.  The Court said,

[T]he mere existence of a competing tribunal is insufficient to displace labour arbitration as the sole forum for disputes arising from a collective agreement. Consequently, some positive expression of the legislature’s will is necessary to achieve that effect. Ideally, where a legislature intends concurrent jurisdiction, it will specifically so state in the tribunal’s enabling statute. But even absent specific language, the statutory scheme may disclose that intention. For example, some statutes specifically empower a decision-maker to defer consideration of a complaint if it capable of being dealt with through the grievance process (see, e.g., Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210, s.25; Canada Labour Code, ss. 16(1.1) and 98(3), Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, ss 41 and 42). Such provisions necessarily imply that the tribunal has concurrent jurisdiction over disputes that are also subject to the grievance process.

The key difference between the Manitoba legislation and human rights statutes in other jurisdictions is the existence of an explicit ‘deferral to another proceeding’ provision. This is highlighted by Justice Karakatsanis’ dissent in Horrocks. The main point of departure for Justice Karakatsanis was her view that section 29(3) of the Manitoba Human Rights Code could and should be broadly interpreted as a “deferral” provision, signaling legislative intent to confer concurrent jurisdiction, even though it did not use same “deferral” language as other statutes.  Justice Karakatsanis found in paragraphs 118-119 of the decision that section 29(3) of the Manitoba Code may be “less explicit than the deferral clauses found in Ontario, British Columbia, and the CHRA”, but that it should be interpreted in the same way. Obviously, and unfortunately for victims of discrimination in Manitoba, the majority of the Court did not agree.

Prior to the Horrocks decision, it was widely accepted in Ontario that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario had concurrent jurisdiction with labour arbitrators for human rights disputes arising out of unionized workplaces. To suggest that has changed post-Horrocks, in our view, is simply wrong.

Like the statutes and sections referred to by the majority, and as expressly referenced in the dissent, the Ontario Human Rights Code has a provision which specifically contemplates the deferral of an application. Sections 45 and 45.1 state:

The Tribunal may defer an application in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application..

In our view, the statutory scheme for human rights in Ontario demonstrates legislative intent of concurrent jurisdiction. Most significantly, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Naraine, 2001 CanLII 21234, (2001), 209 DLR (4th) 465 (ON CA) held that the Ontario legislature intended to confer concurrent jurisdiction over human rights matters on labour arbitrators and the human rights tribunal. Referring to the deferral provision in the Ontario Human Rights Code at the time as contemplating concurrency through “synchronized discretion” with labour arbitrators, the Court of Appeal observed that this was evidently the legislature’s intent.  The Court of Appeal highlighted the policy reasons behind concurrency, observing that “there may be circumstances where an individual unionized employee finds the arbitral process foreclosed, since the decision whether to proceed with a grievance is the union’s and not the employee’s.”  The Court of Appeal added that assigning exclusive jurisdiction to labour arbitrators in Ontario could “render chimerical the rights of individual unionized employees.”

We pause to note that the Ontario Court of Appeal’s judgment in Naraine was written by Abella J.A., as she then was, before she was elevated to the Supreme Court of Canada. Since Justice Abella joined in the majority decision in Horrocks written by Justice Brown, it must be assumed that Abella J was not agreeing to overturn herself in Naraine.

Human rights are quasi-constitutional rights belonging to individuals. Should the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario interpret Horrocks to deny persons in Ontario access to the Tribunal to seek redress for alleged human rights violations, that would effectively strip the individualized nature of these rights from unionized employees.

Grievances are owned by unions, not individuals. Unions can choose whether or not to advance a grievance for a number of reasons, and even when a grievance is advanced, can decide whether to include allegations of human rights breaches or not. The individual has little control over that process, short of the ability to file a complaint against a union for unfair representation. While some unfamiliar with labour law may believe that this is a legitimate option, in practicality, very few unfair representation complaints have been successful because the case law in that area has afforded unions broad discretion in when to advance grievances with very few exceptions.

While unions may have good reason not to advance a grievance where there are legitimate human rights issues at play, we must also recognize that the quasi-constitutional nature of human rights should also afford individuals to be permitted to have those allegations determined by an expert human rights body – the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

While Horrocks may appear definitive at first glance, a careful reading indicates that it has not changed the legal status quo in other provinces.  

Older Entries