← University
Remedies and the Cost of a Finding of Discrimination
0 of 4

A decision issued by a provincial human rights tribunal found that a regional manufacturing company with approximately 85 employees had discriminated against a former production supervisor on the basis of disability. The decision, running to 47 pages, concluded that the company failed to accommodate the supervisor's return to work following a medical leave and ultimately terminated her employment in circumstances that constituted discrimination under provincial human rights legislation.

The supervisor had worked for the company for 11 years before developing a chronic condition that required intermittent absences and modifications to her work schedule. Following a 4-month medical leave, she sought to return to her position with accommodations recommended by her treating physician, including a graduated return starting at 4 hours per day and restrictions on prolonged standing. The company's response to these requests formed the core of the complaint. Internal emails produced during the tribunal proceedings showed that senior management had characterized the accommodations as operationally impractical and had explored whether restructuring could eliminate the supervisor's position. Within 6 weeks of the supervisor's return-to-work request, the company advised her that her role no longer existed and offered a severance package equivalent to 8 weeks of pay.

The supervisor filed a human rights complaint 3 months after her termination. The matter proceeded through investigation, mediation that did not resolve the dispute, and ultimately a 5-day hearing held over 14 months after the complaint was filed. The tribunal's decision, released 4 months after the hearing concluded, found that the company had failed to demonstrate that accommodating the supervisor would have caused undue hardship and that the timing and circumstances of the termination were inextricably linked to her disability and accommodation needs.

The tribunal reserved on remedies pending further submissions from the parties. The company now faces the question of what a finding of discrimination will cost—not only in terms of the formal remedies the tribunal may order but also in the broader financial, operational, and organizational consequences that flow from such a finding. The supervisor's counsel has filed submissions seeking compensation for lost wages since termination, general damages for injury to dignity, and systemic remedies requiring the company to revise its accommodation policies and undergo third-party monitoring. The company's board of directors has asked management to prepare a comprehensive assessment of the organization's total exposure.

The Total Cost of a Finding: Legal Fees, Management Time, and Reputational Impact

When a human rights tribunal or court finds that discrimination has occurred, the formal remedies ordered represent only part of the financial and operational impact on the organization found liable. Business owners who focus exclusively on the monetary awards published in tribunal decisions often underestimate the true cost of a discrimination finding by a significant margin. The expenses that accumulate before, during, and after proceedings extend far beyond what appears in any order, touching every aspect of an organization's operations and sometimes threatening its very survival. Understanding these broader costs is essential for any Canadian business owner, sole proprietor, or non-profit operator who wishes to make informed decisions about prevention, response, and risk management in the human rights context.

The Canadian human rights system, whether accessed through the Canadian Human Rights Act at the federal level or through provincial and territorial statutes such as the British Columbia Human Rights Code, the Alberta Human Rights Act, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, the Ontario Human Rights Code, or the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, contemplates remedies that are fundamentally compensatory rather than punitive. The primary objective is to make the complainant whole, to place them as nearly as possible in the position they would have occupied had the discrimination not occurred. This compensatory philosophy means that tribunal orders typically focus on lost wages, compensation for injury to dignity, and systemic remedies such as policy changes or training requirements. What the orders do not capture, and what respondent organizations must absorb regardless of outcome, are the substantial costs incurred in defending against a complaint, the diversion of management attention and organizational resources, and the reputational consequences that can persist long after formal proceedings conclude.

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 $79 course — purchasing unlocks it, or sign in if you already have access.