Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Federal Court granted judicial review, finding the Tribunal misapplied the prima facie discrimination test, ignored key evidence, and remitted the matter to a different member.
The court dismissed a claimant’s interim application for child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses and interim property relief after finding no prima facie marriage-like relationship.
The Tribunal found a prima facie case only with respect to the termination: the complainant's disability materially contributed to performance deficits, the employer failed to accommodate and did not follow up after probation thereby discriminating under s.7; accordingly remedies including reinstatement, lost wages to September 28, 2015, pension adjustments, bonus calculation, awards for pain and suffering and special compensation, and interest were ordered.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a PSST decision, holding the tribunal reasonably found no evidence linking a supervisor’s negative reference to discrimination.
The complainant failed to establish a prima facie link between the transfer and prohibited grounds (race or sex); the respondent provided a credible non‑discriminatory explanation (a July 2010 workplace incident) and the complainant did not rebut that explanation on the balance of probabilities; therefore the complaint is not substantiated and is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Complainant failed to establish prima facie discrimination because there was insufficient evidence that the employer knew of the pregnancy when terminating her; credible testimonial evidence established repeated scanning errors and Canada Post complaints as non‑discriminatory reasons for termination; therefore complaint under s.7 and s.10 CHRA dismissed.
Source excerpt
The complainant established he suffered a disability but failed to establish that the respondent knew or ought to have known of the disability and that the disability played a role in the termination; therefore the complainant did not establish a prima facie case under s.7 CHRA and the complaint must be dismissed.
Source excerpt
Tribunal dismissed both delay motions because claimed prejudice stemmed from respondent inaction and there was no proof of significant prejudice from decision delay; tribunal found complainant established prima facie discrimination under s.7(b) and harassment under s.14 on grounds of race, national or ethnic origin and colour, but weighed credibility of witnesses and found respondent witnesses credible and complainant inconsistent; on balance of probabilities the prima facie discrimination did not occur as alleged and the complaint was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Although the complainant established a prima facie case (he was qualified, not hired, and women were hired), the respondent provided a complete, reasonable and non‑pretextual explanation: the complainant’s initial on‑line application lacked required information and he was screened out for that reason; he was later allowed to submit a paper résumé and was placed in a qualified pool, but the indeterminate appointment was given to a candidate assessed as the superior and 'right fit' (interpersonal skills, references, initiative); sex was not a factor and the complaint was therefore not substanti…
Source excerpt
Tribunal found complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination on family status but respondent discharged its burden by proving a reasonable, non‑discriminatory explanation (attendance, timesheet discrepancies, missed deadlines, deteriorating supervisor relationship); harassment not made out because alleged conduct was not sufficiently persistent or severe.
Source excerpt
Explore more
