← University
The Human Rights Complaint Process: From Filing to Hearing
Faculty of LawHuman Rights Law
0 of 6
123456

A small non-profit organization providing community services in a mid-sized Canadian city had operated for 11 years with a stable team of 8 full-time employees and a rotating roster of part-time staff and volunteers. The organization's work centred on delivering programming to underserved populations, and its operating budget of approximately $650,000 annually came primarily from government grants and private donations. The executive director, who had led the organization since its founding, managed day-to-day operations with minimal administrative support and no dedicated human resources function.

In the spring, the organization terminated the employment of a program coordinator who had worked there for just over 2 years. The termination letter cited performance concerns and a restructuring of program delivery, providing 3 weeks of working notice plus 2 weeks of pay in lieu. The program coordinator had, in the 4 months preceding termination, disclosed a mental health condition to the executive director and requested accommodation in the form of modified scheduling for medical appointments and a temporary reduction in public-facing duties during a period of intensive treatment. The organization had agreed to some scheduling modifications but had declined other requests, citing operational constraints and the coordinator's essential role in community programming.

Approximately 6 weeks after the termination took effect, the organization received formal notice that a human rights complaint had been filed against it. The complaint alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, asserting that the termination was connected to the coordinator's mental health condition and that the organization had failed to adequately accommodate the disability before ending the employment relationship. The complaint sought reinstatement, compensation for lost wages spanning the period since termination, and damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The organization now faces the task of responding to the complaint within the prescribed timeline while continuing to deliver its programs and maintain workplace morale among remaining staff, some of whom worked closely with the former coordinator. The board of directors, composed of 5 volunteer members with limited experience in employment disputes, must determine how to allocate limited organizational resources to mount a response. The executive director's contemporaneous documentation of the performance concerns and the accommodation discussions exists but is scattered across emails, handwritten notes, and incomplete personnel files. The organization carries directors and officers liability insurance but has never made a claim under the policy and is uncertain whether the policy responds to human rights proceedings or legal costs associated with the complaint.

Retaliation Prohibition: What Employers Cannot Do After a Complaint Is Filed

When an employee files a human rights complaint against an employer, the relationship between those parties enters a fundamentally altered state. The complaint itself represents an assertion of rights protected under law, and Canadian human rights legislation across all jurisdictions recognizes that this assertion must be protected from interference. Retaliation prohibition exists precisely because the entire human rights system would collapse if employers could punish workers for seeking its protection. The concept operates on a straightforward premise: an employee who experiences discrimination or harassment must be able to report that conduct without fear that doing so will make their situation worse. This protection extends beyond the person who files the complaint to encompass witnesses, individuals who assist complainants, and anyone else who participates in the complaint process in good faith.

The legislative foundation for retaliation prohibition appears in every provincial and territorial human rights code in Canada, as well as in the federal Canadian Human Rights Act for federally regulated employers. In British Columbia, the Human Rights Code prohibits retaliation against any person who files a complaint, gives evidence, or assists in a complaint under the Code, as of the date of authorship. Alberta's Alberta Human Rights Act contains similar provisions protecting complainants and participants from adverse treatment. Ontario's Human Rights Code explicitly prohibits reprisals for claiming or enforcing rights under that legislation. Saskatchewan's Human Rights Code mirrors this approach, as does the legislation in Manitoba, the Atlantic provinces, and the territories. Quebec approaches the matter through the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which integrates protection against reprisal into its broader framework governing dignified treatment in employment relationships. The federal Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits retaliation or threats against any person who has filed a complaint, given evidence, or otherwise assisted in a complaint process. What unites all these legislative frameworks is the recognition that the right to seek redress for discrimination must be practically enforceable, and practical enforceability requires protection from backlash.

That’s the free preview

You’ve reached the end of what’s open to read. The rest of this lesson is part of a $149 course — purchasing unlocks it, or sign in if you already have access.

Unlock this course — $149
Join Binder UniversityTry Binder

More in this program

Direct Discrimination: When the Protected Ground Is the Reason for the Decision
Discrimination in Employment: What It Is and How It Is Proven
Harassment Under Human Rights Law: What It Is and What It Is Not
Harassment and Poisoned Work Environment Claims
Compensation for Lost Wages and Benefits: How Tribunals Calculate the Award
Remedies and the Cost of a Finding of Discrimination