In A Flash

Employer Must Pay for Citizenship-Based Discrimination: Update on Haseeb and Imperial Oil

In Haseeb and Imperial Oil Limited, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”) ordered the Employer to pay $101,363.16 for discrimination based on citizenship.

This decision follows up the 2018 decision where the Tribunal found that the employer had discriminated against the applicant on the ground of citizenship due to a requirement that candidates needed to be eligible to work in Canada on a permanent basis.  A summary of the earlier decision can be found in our previous In a Flash Discrimination based on Citizenship: New HRTO Decision Addresses the Convergence of Immigration and Employment Law

In coming to its decision, the Tribunal considered the applicant’s dishonesty during the hiring process.

During the hiring process, the applicant was dishonest. He had confirmed in person and by phone about his eligibility to work in Canada on a permanent basis, including stating that he had a permanent resident card and a SIN, despite not having the right at the time to work on a permanent basis in Canada. The Tribunal found that “but for the discriminatory act of asking the questions about his eligibility to work in Canada on a permanent basis, there would have been no dishonesty by the applicant”.

The Tribunal then assessed the applicant’s claims for lost income and determined that the appropriate length of time to award compensation was from March 30, 2015, the date upon which the applicant began working at his other employment, to May 3, 2019, when the applicant left that job. The employer was ordered to pay the difference in earnings over that time period.

With respect to damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, the Tribunal emphasized that where discriminatory conduct results in the loss of a job or job opportunity, damages are usually at least $15, 000 or higher. The Tribunal found that the employer’s denial of employment to the applicant in the early stages of his career was objectively serious conduct. The Tribunal noted that applicant had a “particular vulnerability as an immigrant to Canada with uncertainty as to his status at the relevant time”.

As can be seen in this case, employers need to be cognizant of potential risks under the Human Rights Code when hiring employees who are working in Canada pursuant to a work permit.  Employers should review their hiring practices and interview questions to minimize risks of potentially violating the Human Rights Code.

If you have any questions regarding such human rights risks please do not hesitate to contact a Mathews Dinsdale lawyer.

The author gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Arielle Sie-Mah, a Student-at-Law in the firm’s Toronto office

Print article

More insights

In A Flash

New Workplace Investigation Ordered Due to Procedural Flaws

On May 2, 2024, the Federal Court found that an investigation conducted into various allegations of workplace harassment and violence conducted by the Canadian Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) violated the principles of procedural fairness. As a result, the Court ordered a new investigation, using a different investigator.

Read more
In A Flash

NAV CANADA permitted to establish multiple pay equity plans

On December 13, 2023, the federal Pay Equity Commissioner (the “Commissioner”) authorized NAV CANADA to establish two pay equity plans, despite unanimous opposition from the affected unions. Establishing multiple plans is an exception to the presumption under section 12 of the Pay Equity Act (the “Act”) in favour of an employer creating a single pay equity plan for its entire workforce. This decision is significant as it is one of the first decisions approving, in part, an application for multiple pay equity plans.

Read more


Our complimentary webinars address the practical and legal issues for Canadian employers.

View our Webinars