In early 2024, a mid-sized professional services firm in Kitchener, Ontario posted 2 legal positions through its corporate website and several recruiting platforms, seeking candidates with less than 3 years at the bar to join its expanding litigation practice. The firm had implemented an automated pre-hire screening system 14 months earlier, designed to filter the initial wave of applications before any human reviewer examined the candidate pool. A 29-year-old lawyer called to the Ontario bar 18 months earlier, with credentials from a law faculty outside Canada, submitted a comprehensive application package that included her Law Society of Ontario licence in good standing, her academic transcripts from her overseas legal education, and a detailed summary of her post-call experience with a boutique Toronto firm. The automated screening system rejected her application within 72 hours. No human being at the Kitchener firm reviewed her materials before that rejection. No override mechanism existed that would have flagged her file for individualized assessment despite the algorithmic determination. The system's rejection logic, buried in proprietary code licensed from a third-party vendor, had weighted Canadian law school attendance as a threshold criterion without any documented business necessity analysis. This fact pattern illuminates the intersection of automated employment decision-making and the Ontario Human Rights Code, a collision that produces distinctive compliance obligations for employers who delegate initial screening to algorithmic systems.