Do employers have a duty to investigate a human rights complaint where no discrimination is found to exist?
In a decision issued earlier this year, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario stated that an employer has no duty to investigate a human rights complaint unless discrimination is found to exist [Scaduto v. Insurance Search Bureau]. This decision seems to be in line with an earlier court case where the court concluded that liability for discrimination cannot rest on a “freestanding duty to investigate [Walton Entreprises v. Lombardi ].
If there has been discrimination then a duty to investigate does arise. In this regard, an adjudicator under the Ontario Human Rights Code concluded that Section 5 of the Code would not be effective if the employer could sit by and not investigate a complaint. The employer has a duty to ensure they are operating a discrimination-free work environment. One of the ways in which they can do this is by investigating complaints [Laskowska v. Marineland]. Accordingly, the duty to investigate is basically a means to an end. The Tribunal will award damages for failure to adequately investigate a discrimination complaint if discrimination is found to exist.
In Scaduto, the most recent case, the adjudicator did not find that there was any discrimination. In addition, the employee did not make a complaint until after the employer had decided to terminate his employment. As such, she found that the failure to properly investigate did not contribute to the discrimination. Basically since an investigation would have found that there was no discrimination, it did not make sense to punish the employer for failing to investigate. The rationale behind this seems to be sound. Section 5 of the Code is meant to ensure that an employee is working in a workplace free from harassment because of prohibitive grounds, however section 5 of the Code does not require an employer to investigate every complaint. The purpose of the investigation is to ensure that the workplace is free from discrimination. We believe however an employer should take every complaint seriously and investigate it.
Employer Takeaways
- An employer has a duty to ensure that the workplace is free from discrimination. If discrimination is found to have taken place then the Tribunal will order an employer to pay damages for failing to adequately investigate a complaint.
- Based on Scaduto and Walton, it seems that the HRTO is not likely to find a breach of the Code where there is a failure to investigate a discrimination complaint when no discrimination is found.
- The age old saying “better safe than sorry” applies here. Unless an employer can be absolutely certain that there is no discrimination, we believe the employer should as a general rule investigate all discrimination complaints. Even in Scaduto, the vice-chair warned that failure to do so is at the employer’s peril.
The material and information in this blog and this website are for general information only. They should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The authors make no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of any information referred to in this blog or its links. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog. Readers should obtain appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed in the relevant jurisdiction. These materials do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and any of the authors or the MacLeod Law Firm.
Tags: Barrie Employment Lawyer Barrie Employment Lawyer Doug MacLeod Discrimination Doing Business In Ontario Doug MacLeod Employment Law Updates Employment Lawyer Barrie Employment Lawyer Toronto Employment Lawyers Barrie Employment Lawyers Toronto Human Resources Policies Human Rights Human Rights Code MacLeod Law Firm Ontario Human Rights
Recent Posts
Doug’s Top 5 Employment Law Stories of 2022
Here are my top 5 employment law stories for 2022: 1. COVID 19 - Temporary Layoffs This issue remains my number one story because this issue impacts so many court cases. Some judges have concluded that a temporary layoff set out in the Infectious Disease Emergency...
Reducing Litigation Risk
In a recent case, Pohl v. Hudson’s Bay Company, 2022 ONSC 5230 (CanLII),an employer was ordered to pay a long service employee the equivalent of about 3 years pay and contribute about $ 35 000 to his legal fees. Although this was a without cause termination case, it...
Employment Law Update: Electronic Monitoring Policy
A new amendment to the Employment Standards Act requires employers with 25 or more employees on January 1st of a given year to put in place a written policy regarding any electronic monitoring processes they use to monitor employees. The deadline for 2022 is October...