Human Rights Law Digest 2025

December 30, 2025
Nisha Dhanoa, Rebecca Hines

Introduction

In key decisions from 2025, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) and other adjudicative bodies addressed creed-based challenges to vaccination policies, sexual harassment, discrimination in parental and sick leave, disability accommodations, workplace investigations, and employment equity initiatives. This digest highlights notable rulings from hospitals, universities, and private sector workplaces that illustrate how tribunals balance individual rights with operational and safety requirements.

HRTO’s Treatment of Creed-Based Challenges to Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policies for Workers in Hospitals

In a series of 2025 decisions, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) confirmed that personal objections to COVID-19 vaccinations in the hospital employment context, including beliefs about bodily autonomy, distrust of vaccines, or individualized religious convictions, do not, on their own, amount to a protected “creed” under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Key decisions include:

In one contrasting case, Stevenson v. Woodstock General Hospital Trust, 2025 HRTO 1535, the HRTO allowed a creed-based challenge to proceed past the preliminary stage. The applicant alleged that, as part of her Judeo-Christian beliefs, she objected to vaccines derived from research involving aborted fetal stem cells. In an Interim Decision, the Tribunal allowed the claim to move forward in the Tribunal process. The decision also notes that the parties were willing to attempt mediation, and it remains unclear whether the matter will ultimately proceed to a hearing on the merits.

Creed-Based Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine Challenge

Loder v. Huron Perth Health Care Alliance, 2025 HRTO 1995 – The HRTO dismissed a claim by a hospital housekeeper who refused the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, finding her objections were based on personal beliefs rather than a legally protected creed. The Tribunal also held that the hospital’s vaccination policy was a bona fide occupational requirement and that accommodation would have caused undue hardship.

Notable Sexual Harassment Cases

Brock University v. Brock University Faculty Association (unreported; available here) – Arbitrator Reaume upheld Brock University’s termination of a tenured professor for sexual harassment, finding a persistent pattern of inappropriate comments, unwanted contact, and breaches of policy that created a poisoned environment; dismissal was deemed reasonable and not excessive. (For more details, see our original reporting here)

Toronto Metropolitan Faculty Association v Toronto Metropolitan University, 2025 CanLII 95115 – Arbitrator Mathew upheld Toronto Metropolitan University’s termination of a pre-tenured faculty member for gross misconduct, including sexual harassment and workplace incivility toward a senior colleague. The arbitrator found over 30 incidents of sexualized comments and disrespectful conduct, concluding that the behaviour violated multiple university policies and that dismissal was appropriate. (For more details, see our original reporting here)

Robert Gifford, 2025 BCLRB 109 (original decision); Robert Gifford, 2025 BCLRB 156 (reconsideration decision) – The BC Labour Relations Board dismissed two related duty of fair representation applications arising from the termination of a tenured professor at the University of Victoria for sexual harassment. In the original decision, the Board found the faculty association’s decision not to arbitrate was reasoned, based on legal advice and internal review, and not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. On reconsideration, the Board reaffirmed that its role was not to assess the merits of the grievance but to ensure fair representation, concluding the union had considered all relevant factors and provided the professor opportunities to present his case. Both applications were dismissed. (For more details, see our original reporting here)

Watter v. McMaster University, 2025 ONSC 4930 – The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a tenured Associate Professor’s judicial review application challenging his dismissal from McMaster University. The Court found the decision to terminate, based on serious misconduct including sexual relationships with students, one of whom was mentally vulnerable, and breaches of trust, was reasonable and procedurally fair.

Flowers v. WE Davies Opticians, 2025 HRTO 2336 (original decision); Flowers v. WE Davies Opticians, 2025 HRTO 2658 (reconsideration decision) – The HRTO found WE Davies Opticians and its sole director liable for sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, and creating a poisoned work environment, ordering $8,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect. The applicant’s uncontested testimony described persistent sexualized remarks, such as being called “f**kable” and an incident where the owner grabbed his crotch in front of her. The employer’s reconsideration request was denied.

Alberta Health Services v The United Nurses of Alberta, 2025 CanLII 74910 – An arbitrator ordered Alberta Health Services to pay $40,000 in general damages to a registered nurse after finding AHS failed to provide a safe workplace and discriminated against her following sexual harassment by a physician. The decision concluded AHS breached its occupational health and safety obligations and its duty to accommodate by removing the nurse from her unit instead of imposing modest restrictions on the physician, causing further harm linked to gender and disability.

Knowles v. Ontime Moving Corporation, 2025 BCHRT 183 – The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ordered Ontime Moving Corporation to pay approximately $64,630 (for lost wages, expenses incurred because of discrimination, and injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect) to a former employee who quit after enduring over a year of sexual harassment and inadequate employer response. The tribunal found repeated sexualized comments, inappropriate touching, and management’s failure to act created a discriminatory workplace.

Complainant v 1957753 Alberta Ltd. o/a 4 Seasons Transport, 2025 AHRC 63 – The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal found that a part-time employee was repeatedly sexually harassed by her employer, the owner of a moving company, including coerced oral sex. The tribunal held that the conduct created a toxic workplace and amounted to discrimination based on gender and her disability, which had reduced her ability to resist the harassment. The tribunal awarded $50,000 for injury to dignity and about $3,000 for therapy costs.

Starr et al. v. Stevens, 2024 CHRT 127 – The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found a Band councillor and manager repeatedly sexually harassed three female employees, creating a poisoned work environment and causing severe mental health impacts. The tribunal ordered the respondent to complete anti-harassment training and pay each complainant $40,000 in damages ($20k for for pain and suffering experienced as a result of the discriminatory practice and another $20k in “special compensation”), plus $44,973 in lost wages for one complainant, totaling nearly $165,000.

Parental and Sick Leave Termination Cases

Li v. CMR Kumra Medicine Professional Corporation, 2025 HRTO 399 – The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario awarded nearly $45,000 to a former receptionist after finding discrimination based on pregnancy and family status. When she returned from parental leave, she faced a hostile work environment, increased hours, reassigned duties, and was effectively replaced by another employee. The award included about $23,000 for lost wages and $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

Amies v Lethbridge Family Services, 2025 AHRC 19 – The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal upheld the dismissal of a complaint alleging discrimination based on mental disability after the complainant was terminated on her first day back from a year-long medical leave. Despite the timing, the Tribunal found that the decision to terminate was made: (a) before the complainant went on a medical leave; and (b) on the basis of the results of two investigations into the complainant’s workplace behaviour and misconduct, rather than her mental health. The evidence demonstrated that the complainant went on medical leave after these results were communicated to her and that the employer delayed termination until the complainant’s medical leave ended.

Lam v. Data Scientific Inc., 2025 HRTO 2813 – A graphic designer was discriminated against based on pregnancy and place of origin and subjected to harassment, including sexual harassment, the Tribunal found. After disclosing her pregnancy and asking about her benefits and the need for pregnancy-leave, she was told that she “was just there to get pregnant and [would] never come back,” and was terminated the next day. In addition, she had been placed on a six-month probation, and her work had been questioned because she was from Hong Kong. She was awarded $25,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, approximately $4,600 for loss of income, and $1,500 for medical expenses.

Disability and Accommodation Cases

Burggraaf v. Convergys CMG Canada ULC, 2025 HRTO 2599 – A blind job applicant was awarded $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-worth and approximately $8,500 for lost wages. The Tribunal found the employer had discriminated against the applicant by refusing to hire him for a Sales Associate role after failing to properly explore and provide disability-related accommodations, breaching both the procedural and substantive duty to accommodate under the Code.

Treleaven v. Canadian Mental Health Association Brant Haldimand Norfolk, 2025 HRTO 250 – The Tribunal dismissed a disability discrimination complaint, finding the allegations reflected dissatisfaction with service quality rather than discrimination under the Code.

Bastas v. North City Insurance Brokers Division of RDA Insurance, 2025 HRTO 2085 – The complaint of a business development manager, who alleged she was terminated because she sought medical accommodation to work from home during COVID-19, was dismissed. The Tribunal concluded her July 2020 termination was driven by legitimate business reasons rather than her accommodation request, which the employer had already granted.

Ovwodorume v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 710 – The Ontario Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal’s dismissal of a personal support worker’s discrimination complaint, finding that his termination early in the COVID-19 pandemic was based on serious breaches of workplace safety policies, and not because he had contracted the COVID-19 virus.

Investigations

Metrolinx v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1587, 2025 ONCA 415 – The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the Union’s appeal of an Ontario Divisional Court decision, confirming that employers must investigate workplace harassment under the OHSA even without a formal complaint, and upheld the quashing of an arbitration award reinstating employees whose off-duty sexist WhatsApp messages negatively impacted the workplace. (For more details, see our additional reporting here)

Belisle v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 1370 – A new investigation into an Indigenous public servant’s human rights complaint was ordered by the Federal Court on an application for judicial review. The Court found that the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s original investigation was insufficiently thorough and procedurally unfair because it relied on limited witness interviews, lacked transparency about the evidence considered, and refused to accept timely rebuttal material from the complainant.

Women-Only Job Posting

Horne v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2024 HRTO 1788 – The union’s practice of restricting a posted position to qualified women was upheld as a valid “special program” under the Code because it formed part of a documented employment equity plan aimed at addressing systemic disadvantage and under-representation. The Tribunal also rejected a challenge to the union’s voluntary self-identification questionnaire, holding that, because disclosure of protected characteristics was optional, it did not constitute discrimination.

Vexatious Litigant

Papushina v. University Health Network, 2025 HRTO 269 – The applicant was declared a vexatious litigant after they filed multiple complaints that were dismissed as an abuse of process. The Tribunal found that the applicant, working with a previously restricted litigant, repeatedly submitted meritless claims and ignored procedural rules.

This publication provides general information and should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. This publication is copyrighted by Hunter Legal LLP and may not be photocopied or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the express permission of Hunter Legal LLP.

SIGN-UP FOR UPDATES

Subscribe for our latest updates, resources and other communications.

SUBSCRIBE