Responding to a human rights complaint

As an employer it is always possible that your organization will become involved in a human rights complaint— most likely as the respondent. Being the respondent means that a complaint has been filed against you, probably by an employee, former employee, customer or other member of the general public. You must respond in writing to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) within 35 days in order to preserve your legal rights.

Responding to an accusation that you have violated someone’s human rights can be overwhelming for a small/medium size business. The accusation may appear to have developed out of thin air and you may not be sure where to turn first. This online response form provided by the HRTO is designed to simplify the process of responding to a human rights complaint application.

The form is a real great tool because it walks you through the entire response process. The form contains a link to the respondent’s guide, another great tool that provides additional guidance. When completed online you may email the form directly to the HRTO. It is not necessary to send a copy to the Applicant (the person who filed the complaint about you or your company).

Common questions answered directly on the form include:

  • What happens if I don’t file a response?
  • What if I feel I have a valid defense to the allegations?
  • Does an exemption under the Human Rights Code apply to this case?

You can ask the HRTO to dismiss an application for the reasons listed below and the form spells out all this information; all you need to do is check off the correct box. When the following conditions exist you do not need to complete the entire response form, just this section!

  • The applicant has already settled the matter with you and signed a waiver agreeing not to file a human rights complaint
  • The case is before a civil court on substantially the same issues (an applicant is not allowed to “double-dip”)
  • The HRTO has already heard this case on substantially the same issues
  • The case is within federal jurisdiction and the HRTO is unable to hear it

You will need to submit documentation to support your claim when indicating in your response that one or more of the above conditions applies. The documentation necessary is described fully on the form and in the respondent’s guide.

Where another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the case you can also ask the HRTO to dismiss it. In this situation however, you will need to complete the response form in its entirety including why you think the case has been already dealt with. This situation often occurs when an employee or former employee starts concurrent legal action perhaps with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) or files a union grievance that proceeds to arbitration.

Another option is to ask the HRTO to postpone, or defer, the application because the matter is currently being heard by an arbitrator or other decision making body. The form indicates clearly the information you are required to provide when this is the case.

I highly recommend that you take a few minutes and review this form. Interesting and informative sections point you to documents you need to have in order to respond to a human rights complaint including:

  • Job descriptions outlining essential duties of a job
  • Workplace policies include Human rights related policies
  • A process for filing an internal human rights complaint
  • Other documentation that supports your response

Responding to a human rights complaint is never simple. This form simplifies the process for you but does not take the place of legal advice. Remember the mantra—Learn don’t litigate—be proactive instead of reactive.

Andrew Lawson
www.learndl.ca

Share

Related Posts

Imagen 1

Employees with disabilities – accommodation strategies (Part I)

Accommodating employees with disabilities to the point of undue hardship under human rights legislation can be a complicated task. It’s important to make sure the accommodation process goes smoothly and the employee can focus on working as efficiently as possible, but employers may not be sure about what kinds of questions to ask disabled employees in order to meet their needs.

Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD

Read more
Imagen 1

Slaw: Canadian Human Rights Commission’s controversial ‘anti-hate’ policy

The Canadian Human Rights Commission recently posted a policy on its website concerning how it interprets and applies section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) when it receives an inquiry or complaint. The purpose of section 13 of the Act is to balance Canadians’ rights to equality and freedom of expression with respect to hate messages, as protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The parliamentary record indicates that section 13 was initially included in the legislation to address activities of individuals and groups who used the telephone system to disseminate hate messages. In December 2001, parliament amended the CHRA by adding section 13(2), which makes it clear that Internet hate messages come under the jurisdiction of the commission.

Read the whole article on Slaw.ca.

Marie-Yosie Saint-Cyr, LL.B. Managing Editor

Read more
Imagen 1

The new age of workplace gossip – TMI!

I’ve discussed workplace gossip here before, and what bosses can do to prevent it or at least reduce the potential harm, but there are a couple of hyper-modern developments that I didn’t get into: reality television and the Internet. These two things have created a culture of “sharing”, for lack of a better word, that encourages people at play or work to divulge the most mundane and private details of their lives to others—the kind of information that one previously might only have shared with family or best friends.

Adam Gorley

Read more