Annual Report 2024

2024 PDF version (1,371 KB)

SECTION 1: Land acknowledgement

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal conducts hearings and mediations across Canada on traditional territories of Indigenous Peoples. We prepared this report in Ottawa, the traditional unceded and unsurrendered land of the Algonquin Anishinaabe People. We honour and pay respect to these lands and to all First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples.

We all have a role to play in the process of reconciliation. We invite you to learn more about the people whose traditional lands you are on.

SECTION 2: Who we are

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) is an administrative tribunal. We work hard to be less formal than a court. We are independent and work at arm’s length from the federal government. This means that no Minister or other government official can tell us how to decide our cases. We are accountable to Canadians and report on our activity to Parliament through the Minister of Justice.

Under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA), the Tribunal hears cases of discrimination involving federally regulated organizations like the military, airlines, interprovincial trucking, banks and the federal public service. Tribunal members are decision-makers. They hear complaints of discrimination that have been referred to the Tribunal by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”). Tribunal members review submissions and evidence, listen to witnesses at hearings and decide whether discrimination has occurred. If the Tribunal member determines that discrimination occurred, they can rule on remedies. Parties can decide to settle their complaints through mediation or proceed to a hearing.

The Tribunal also has two other mandates. The first is under the Pay Equity Act (PEA), which requires employers to take a proactive approach to giving men and women equal pay for doing work of equal value. We have two roles under the PEA:

• the Pay Equity Commissioner can refer an important question of law or a question of jurisdiction to the Tribunal to determine; and
• an employer, bargaining agent (e.g., union) or other affected person may appeal some of the Pay Equity Commissioner’s decisions or orders to the Tribunal.

We are also preparing to make decisions under the Accessible Canada Act (ACA), which aims to ensure that everyone in Canada can fully participate in society by requiring federal organizations to proactively identify, remove and prevent barriers to accessibility for persons with disabilities. Our role under the ACA is to decide appeals of certain decisions made by the Accessibility Commissioner.

As of December 31, 2024, the Tribunal consists of the Chairperson, the Vice-Chairperson and eight full-time members. Eight part-time members work from various places across the country.

SECTION 3: Message from the Chairperson

On behalf of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, I am pleased to present our 2024 Annual Report. This past year, we focused on welcoming a number of new Tribunal members to build adjudicative capacity and reduce delay.

The appointment of six full-time members and one part-time member in 2024 has significantly improved our ability to hear and decide cases more promptly. In December 2023, parties waited an average of 200 days for a file to be assigned to an adjudicator. By the end of December 2024, this waiting period was eliminated. We also doubled the number of complaints heard in 2024 compared to the previous year, and I expect continued progress in 2025.

Parliament entrusted the Tribunal with adjudicating human rights complaints under the Canadian Human Rights Act. But, as the Supreme Court of Canada held, the Tribunal is an adjudicator of the particular claim that is before it and is not a Royal Commission (Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para 64). The Tribunal has a clear statutory mandate: to hear and decide cases fairly and efficiently. Proceedings are meant to have a beginning and an end, so that cases are resolved and closed within a reasonable timeframe. Endless, unfocused and undisciplined litigation serves no one and undermines public confidence in the Tribunal.

Prolonged cases burden all parties and—where the complaint is substantiated—delay meaningful remedies. While we have made strides, we have much to do to streamline proceedings, to reduce procedural burdens and to simplify how we run cases. Not all improvements require additional funding. In fact, better case management can actually save resources for the parties, the Tribunal and taxpayers.

Litigation has limits. It cannot resolve all complex issues, and, as adjudicators, we must respect the boundaries of our authority. This is particularly relevant in cases involving systemic discrimination, where effective case management ensures proceedings remain focused. Parties also play a role in maintaining realistic expectations and recognizing that the adversarial process cannot be all things to all people.

“In December 2023, parties waited an average of 200 days for a file to be assigned to an adjudicator. By the end of December 2024, this waiting period was eliminated.”

In my third year as Chairperson, I am pleased to highlight key achievements from 2024.

First, our Members, with the support of mediators and staff, have

• eliminated the backlog of files awaiting assignment
• doubled the number of complaints heard
• closed 122 cases
• mediated 75 cases, settling 52% fully and simplifying case management for others

In addition, we have

• sought input from our stakeholder Roundtable, a cross-section of party representatives, to improve service delivery
• hosted provincial and territorial human rights tribunals at the National Human Rights Tribunal Forum to share best practices
• developed a Member Code of Conduct
• issued a practice direction on the use of artificial intelligence
• delivered ongoing professional development to enhance adjudication skills and decision quality

I thank Tribunal Members, secretariat staff and mediators for their dedication and professionalism. Their commitment ensures the Tribunal remains a strong and independent adjudicative body, where all parties are given a full and ample opportunity to be heard.

Looking ahead, we remain focused on resolving complaints fairly and promptly, refining our processes and upholding the highest adjudicative standards.

Jennifer Khurana
Chairperson
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

SECTION 4: 2024 in numbers

Referrals from the Canadian Human Rights Commission 

In 2024, the Tribunal received 95 complaints from the Commission, which represents a 44% increase compared to the 66 complaints referred in 2023. This brings the number of referrals closer to pre-pandemic levels, as the Commission had referred 102 complaints to the Tribunal in 2019.

New complaints by categories of discrimination 2024

Half of the 95 new complaints that the Commission referred to the Tribunal identified at least one ground of discrimination among race, national or ethnic origin, or colour. Complaints can identify multiple grounds of discrimination. Disability and sex were respectively the second and third most frequently cited grounds of discrimination (35% of complaints cited disability and 32% of complaints cited sex).

Representation

This year, more than half of complainants did not have lawyers. There were also 8 complaints with self-represented respondents.

The Commission represents the public interest. When the Commission fully participates in a case, it attends case management conference calls and the hearing. When the Commission only partially participates, it observes case management calls but does not attend the hearing. In some cases, the Commission does not participate at all. This year, the Commission decided to fully participate in 39% of cases.

Mediation results

In 2024, 74 mediations were held involving 75 complaints. Of these, just over half were settled, which includes 6 complaints mediated and settled during the hearing. Some files settle later in the process, and this investment in alternative dispute resolution is paying dividends.

In 2024, Tribunal Members who were assigned to hear a complaint conducted mediations in 8 of those complaints. Mediation was successful in 5 of these complaints, and the cases were completed without a hearing, saving the parties and the Tribunal significant time and resources.

Hearings

In 2024, the Tribunal heard twice as many cases as in 2023. It heard 38 cases for a total of 190 hearings days.

The Tribunal conducted the majority of its hearing days through virtual hearings in 2024. The Tribunal offers the parties in-person and virtual hearings. A hybrid approach may also be appropriate in some cases.

Rulings and decisions

In 2024, Tribunal members released 101 rulings. Rulings are any published reasons that do not decide the final outcome of the case. They usually address a procedural issue that parties need to resolve before a hearing. The Tribunal also issues directions to parties as they move through the steps of the process.

In contrast to a ruling, a decision is when a Tribunal member issues written reasons that decide the core issues in the case or ends the case. A decision usually sets out whether discrimination occurred and, if so, determines what remedy should be ordered because of the discrimination. The Tribunal issued 41 final decisions in 2024. Of those, 19 were issued after a hearing was held or concluded that the case did not involve a service. The rest were decisions where the complainant did not pursue their case.

SECTION 5: Mediation

Mediation is a voluntary and confidential option for parties who want to try to resolve their complaint before it goes to a hearing. The parties control the process and can decide the outcome. There is certainty in the result, and the parties receive closure and can move forward. In order to further support the parties’ control and finality over the process, the Tribunal no longer mandates a seven-day cooling off period to self-represented complainants as part of its mediation agreement. If parties wish to have a cooling off period after reaching a settlement, they may agree to include one.

The parties work with a Tribunal mediator to settle the complaint or part of the complaint. If the parties do not settle the complaint, they proceed to a hearing.

The Tribunal can appoint a mediator early in the process. A Tribunal mediator can also work with the parties as the case moves forward in case management to try to facilitate settlement at any stage.

As the Supreme Court has written, inordinate delay is contrary to the interests of society (Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Abrametz, 2022 SCC 29 at para 46). Mediation is far quicker than a hearing, more cost-effective and saves the parties, the Tribunal and the public time and money. It is an effective means for the Tribunal to avoid backlogs and delays in hearing complaints. 

In 2024, the Tribunal continued to rely on its established roster of experienced human rights mediators. They helped the parties consider options and provided valuable insight since they are all experienced human rights adjudicators themselves. The mediators have also allowed our Tribunal members to focus on hearing cases.

Some complaints are highly complex and include allegations of systemic discrimination. Even if mediation does not initially settle the entire complaint, it is never a waste of time or a failure. Mediation can help reduce the number of issues in dispute. This means that the parties can move through case management and to a hearing more quickly. Mediation can also lay the foundation for the parties to resolve the case between them. This year, over half of the complaints resolved between the parties had previously benefited from a Tribunal-assisted mediation.

The Tribunal will continue offering mediation to its parties as an alternative to litigation.

“Even if mediation does not initially settle the entire complaint, it is never a waste of time or a failure. Mediation can help reduce the number of issues in dispute.”

SECTION 6: Case management and proportionality

Many of the complaints that the Commission refers to the Tribunal engage novel issues of law and allegations of multiple and intersecting grounds of discrimination. Complaints alleging systemic discrimination in the delivery of a government service often involve voluminous disclosure and lengthy witness lists, including experts. These cases can also have significant public interest ramifications. These files are complex and require active and ongoing case management to move them forward efficiently.

Beyond the complexity and scope of the complaints before the Tribunal, there is a significant disparity in terms of the representation and resources available to complainants and respondents. Most complainants are self- represented. The Commission participates at the hearing in roughly one half of the complaints it refers to the Tribunal. This reality also means that Tribunal members must take an active approach to adjudication to ensure all parties, including those who are self-represented, can fairly and fully participate in our process. This includes managing and shaping the hearing, providing information to self-represented litigants to help them understand the process, and keeping the hearing on track in a fair and even way. In other words, Tribunal members must remain impartial but be engaged, adapting to the needs of the parties before them.

“The Commission participates at the hearing in roughly one half of the complaints it refers to the Tribunal. This reality also means that Tribunal members must take an active approach to adjudication to ensure all parties, including those who are self-represented, can fairly and fully participate in our process.”

Given this reality, the Tribunal must carefully manage its limited resources so that it can execute its mandate and serve all parties. The Tribunal is a relatively small organization and a few big cases can consume a disproportionate share of its resources.

As the Supreme Court of Canada held, one of Parliament’s key purposes in choosing to delegate decision-making in specialized areas such as human rights to administrative tribunals was the expectation that cases would be decided expeditiously and efficiently (Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Abrametz, 2022 SCC 29 at paras 46 and 64). The Tribunal has demonstrated that it is capable of addressing cases promptly by completing a case, after a full hearing and written reasons, within a year.

The Tribunal remains committed to delivering on the promise of administrative justice and to simplifying its processes to get there. To achieve this goal, we did the following:

• We continued training members on proportionate case and hearing management. When parties wish to bring a motion, Tribunal members are encouraged to use the most appropriate tool to resolve the dispute between the parties. Often, this can be a case management call or brief oral directions rather than a formal motion. This allows the parties to keep focused on getting to a hearing.
• We revised our initial letters to the parties to clearly outline the information that the Tribunal needs at the start of the process. This reduces delays caused by misunderstandings about what the parties need to do to advance their case.
• We continued holding early case management conference calls to proactively explain the process, answer questions, encourage mediation and prevent the need for motions and preliminary issues.
• We offered mediation-adjudication in all files and at all stages of the process. Through this approach, the member hearing the case takes on a mediation role to assist parties in resolving the complaints or reducing the issues in dispute.

The parties also have a role to play in support of the efficient and timely management of Tribunal files by making reasonable, proportionate requests and by supporting case management measures designed to resolve the complaint more quickly. This cooperation also reduces the costs and time for all parties involved.

As the Tribunal has stated, “[t]he parties are also expected to run their cases in a balanced and proportionate way and to choose their battles wisely. This is an administrative tribunal, and while [the] complaints are extensive, this inquiry is not the only one before this Tribunal. Further, administrative tribunals can and should be flexible and informal in their procedures, provided they are fair. The legislature chose to delegate the administration of the CHRA to a tribunal and not to the courts. This is because administrative tribunals are expected to render decisions promptly, flexibly and efficiently and to have the ability to provide simplified and streamlined proceedings that can promote access to justice (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] at para. 29). The parties are in turn expected to do their part to support this flexibility so that this matter moves forward as efficiently as possible” (Richards v. Correctional Service Canada, 2023 CHRT 51 at para 29).

SECTION 7: Early Case Management Conference Calls

In 2023, the Chairperson began holding early case management conference calls with the parties in all files involving self-represented litigants that have not agreed to mediation in order to support their ability to navigate the Tribunal process and answer their questions. Another goal of these proactive calls is to minimize motions and other causes of delay and to ensure everyone understands their rights and obligations in the Tribunal process. 

Since the Chairperson began holding early case management conference calls in November 2023, there have been calls in 26 cases. In 10 of these cases, the parties agreed to proceed with mediation to try and settle the complaint after learning more about how the Tribunal can support the parties in trying to resolve their complaints.

SECTION 8: Quality adjudication

While the speed of proceedings matters, so does the quality of how we adjudicate. Beyond having expertise in human rights law, a Tribunal member must have active adjudication and strong case management skills to ensure all parties can meaningfully access our process. Effective case management supports efficient and proportionate hearings. These skills are also central to a fair, timely and accessible human rights system. 

We held regular professional development sessions for members in the areas of statutory interpretation, the scope of a complaint and confidentiality. We also focused on building their expertise in core human rights issues such as the structure of race-based cases and disability-related complaints, and the assessment of lost wage remedies. 

In 2024, we continued training our members to build an understanding of the diverse identities and experiences of parties, witnesses and those impacted by our work. In particular, the organization The 519 provided training to members on 2SLGBTQ+ issues in the legal realm. 

Finally, the Tribunal’s new practice direction on the Use of artificial intelligence (AI) in Tribunal proceedings confirms that adjudication is a human responsibility. Members will not use AI to write their decisions.

SECTION 9: Appointment of new Members

The Tribunal welcomed six new full-time members and one part-time member this year, bringing the Tribunal to the full complement of 18 members provided for under the CHRA for the first time in the history of the Tribunal. This is a significant increase in the full-time member contingent, which was previously comprised of only two full-time members plus the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson. These appointments complete the member selection process that started in 2021. 

The appointment of new members will allow the Tribunal to hear and decide cases in a more timely way. We also revamped our training and onboarding for new members in 2024 to focus on building the skills and core competencies required to mediate and adjudicate human rights complaints. The training highlighted case management strategies to avoid unnecessary motions, explored alternative dispute resolution techniques and involved mentorship with experienced members. 

The seven new members are now responsible for over half of the Tribunal’s adjudicative case load. This has allowed the Tribunal to eliminate its backlog of cases waiting to be assigned to a member. Most newly appointed members have already held hearings. As the new members become more experienced in their roles and their files progress, the Tribunal will be well positioned to hear cases more quickly. 

The Tribunal looks forward to delivering effective and timely service to Canadians with its full complement of members.

“The appointment of new members will allow the Tribunal to hear and decide cases in a more timely way.”

SECTION 10: Website update

In an effort to enhance the accessibility and efficiency of its procedures, the Tribunal launched a new website in April 2024. It features a simplified menu organized around three of the Tribunal’s mandates: human rights, pay equity and accessibility. An effective website is an important communications tool for the Tribunal because over half of complainants, and one in ten non-government respondents, do not have a lawyer. Furthermore, even where parties are represented, many lawyers are not familiar with the Tribunal’s processes. Clearly communicating the information parties need through the website saves time for Tribunal users and Tribunal staff. 

Notably, the new website includes a plain language guide to human rights proceedings. The guide provides an overview of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). It explains who is involved in a case, how mediation works, how to prepare for a hearing and what happens in the hearing. It also contains resources such as sample Statements of Particulars, a checklist to help parties during case management and a checklist to help parties get ready for a hearing. The guide is not legal advice, but it provides information to help all parties to a human rights case better understand what is expected of them and what they can expect from our process. 

The new website also groups on one page all the policies, guides and practice directions that apply to human rights cases, along with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Rules of Procedure and the CHRA. Another page features multi-format versions of all the Tribunal’s human rights forms (e.g., a form to summons a witness and a form to request documents from a Tribunal file), enabling users to complete them online. Similar pages exist for pay equity cases. 

Human rights policies, guides and practice directions 

• Guide to understanding the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
• How to access the official record
• How to participate as an interested person
• How to summons a witness
• How to request an adjournment or a stay
• How to withdraw a complaint
• Recording hearings, use of court reporters and transcripts
• Guidelines for virtual proceedings
• Use of artificial intelligence in Tribunal proceedings

SECTION 11: The Chairperson’s Roundtable

In 2023, the Chairperson established a Roundtable as a forum to get input about the Tribunal’s policies and processes. The Roundtable includes representatives of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) and representatives who regularly represent complainants and respondents before the Tribunal.

The discussions are focused on feedback to help the Tribunal improve how it delivers service to its parties. The Roundtable never discusses individual cases or legislative change. 

The full terms of reference are available on the Tribunal’s website. The Roundtable is currently composed of the following members:

People who regularly represent respondents (Respondent representatives)

• Brian G. Johnston,
  Stewart McKelvey,
  Halifax, NS
• Kevin Staska,
  Department of Justice,
  Winnipeg,  MB
• Sean Stynes,
  Department of Justice,
  Ottawa, ON
• Maryse Tremblay,
  Borden Ladner Gervais,
  Montréal, QC
• Michelle Henry,
  Borden Ladner Gervais,
  Toronto, ON

People who regularly represent complainants (Complainant representatives)

• Busayo Faderin,
  Koskie Minsky,
  Toronto, ON
• Wade Poziomka,
  Ross & McBride,
  Hamilton, ON
• Malini Vijaykumar,
  Nelligan Law,
  Ottawa, ON
• Bijon Roy,
  Champ Law,
  Ottawa, ON
• Fo Niemi,
  CRARR Service,
  Montréal, QC

People who represent the Commission (Commission representatives)

• Sheila Osborne-Brown,
  Canadian Human Rights Commission,
  Ottawa, ON

SECTION 12: Summaries of some 2024 decisions

The following cases are examples of the variety of matters and complexity of issues our Tribunal members decide. The Tribunal’s decisions are published on our website.

Johnson v. Membertou First Nation, 2024 CHRT 16

Joanne Johnson, the Complainant, said that the Membertou First Nation (MFN), the Respondent, had discriminated against her in relation to her employment on the basis of her colour, national or ethnic origin, and race. 

The Complainant was hired as a general manager at the Lanes Bowling Alley (the “Lanes”), a new facility owned by the MFN, with a six-month probation. At the end of Ms. Johnson’s probation, the Chief Operating Officer conducted a review. He extended Ms. Johnson probation, and the MFN eventually dismissed her before the extension expired. 

The Complainant is not Indigenous and not a member of the MFN. She alleged that the MFN had a policy that established a different set of preferential rules for Indigenous persons. Ms. Johnson claimed that the fact that she is not Indigenous was a factor in how the MFN managed her employment and her dismissal. 

The MFN argued that it had dismissed the Complainant while she was on probation because of her performance and insubordination. No prohibited ground of discrimination was a factor in the MFN’s decision. The MFN contended that Ms. Johnson had difficulties mentoring, motivating and dealing with staff at the Lanes. She took a stand-offish position to her superior’s efforts to improve her performance and demonstrated defiance and insubordination. 

The Tribunal was satisfied that the MFN dismissed the Complainant solely based on its perception of her performance as a general manager. The Tribunal found that the evidence did not support Ms. Johnson’s allegations that her national or ethnic origin, race or colour were factors in the MFN’s decision to dismiss her. Neither did she demonstrate that the MFN had a discriminatory employment policy that gave preference to Indigenous persons or members of the MFN.

Mason v. St. Theresa Point First Nation, 2024 CHRT 85

Shirley Mason, the Complainant, is a member of St. Theresa Point First Nation (STPFN), the Respondent. STPFN did not take part in the hearing.

Ms. Mason worked for STPFN’s Health Authority for many years without any problems. 

STPFN hired a new supervisor for Ms. Mason’s group. Ms. Mason knew this new supervisor from the past. She alleged that, 20 years ago, he had sexually assaulted her. 

Ms. Mason claimed that, while working for STPFN, her supervisor targeted her and damaged her working relationship with her employer. She claimed that STPFN reprimanded her for reasons that had never been raised before her new supervisor arrived. Eventually, STPFN fired Ms. Mason. 

The Tribunal found that the actions of Ms. Mason’s supervisor showed a desire to control her. The discipline that led to the loss of her job came primarily from her supervisor. The Tribunal indicated that, even if the sexual assault was not STPFN’s fault, Ms. Mason’s sex was a factor in the reprimands she received and STPFN firing her. 

The Tribunal awarded Ms. Mason compensation for pain and suffering. It noted that the discriminatory termination had a serious impact on Ms. Mason’s mental health, family life and financial situation. 

The Tribunal found that STPFN acted recklessly when it did not question the supervisor’s targeted complaints against Ms. Mason. It awarded Ms. Mason special compensation and ordered STPFN to pay Ms. Mason for lost wages. 

Finally, the Tribunal ordered measures (public interest remedies) to prevent discrimination from happening again.

SM, SV and JR v. RCMP, 2024 CHRT 113

Three Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officers of South Asian descent alleged that the RCMP, the Respondent, discriminated against them during promotion competitions between 2016 and 2019. They argued that the RCMP’s failure to promote them was due to racial bias. The Tribunal dismissed their complaints. 

The Tribunal recognized that the Complainants were members of a protected group and had experienced adverse treatment but concluded that they did not provide enough evidence to prove that race influenced the promotion decisions. While much of the evidence they presented was circumstantial, the Tribunal noted that such evidence must make discrimination more likely than other explanations. In this case, it did not meet that standard. 

The RCMP’s promotion process required candidates to meet specific job criteria, pass a test and submit an application package. The National Promotions Unit screened these packages, and Selecting Line Officers (SLOs) further evaluated the candidates who advanced. The Tribunal reviewed the justifications for each promotion decision and found that the SLOs provided reasonable, non-discriminatory justifications for their selection, including factors such as stronger qualifications, relevant experience and skills that matched the operational needs of a covert unit specializing in high-risk operations. The Tribunal emphasized that its role was not to reassess candidate qualifications but to determine whether the process was discriminatory. Based on the evidence, it concluded that racial discrimination did not influence the decisions. 

The Complainants also argued that systemic racism played a role in their lack of promotion, pointing to the underrepresentation of racialized officers in senior positions within their unit. The Tribunal found no evidence linking systemic racism to the SLOs’ decisions. While the Complainants reported experiencing racist remarks during their careers in the RCMP, the Tribunal found no indication that the decision-makers were biased or condoned such behaviour. It acknowledged the RCMP’s efforts to address systemic racism and promote inclusivity. 

Additionally, the Tribunal reviewed expert evidence on systemic racism in policing but found it had limited relevance to the specific promotions in question. The expert report did not analyze the RCMP’s promotional processes or the unit directly. The Complainants claimed that the subjectivity of the promotion process allowed bias to influence decisions, alleging that the SLOs retroactively tailored selection criteria to favour White candidates. However, the Tribunal concluded that subjectivity alone does not prove discrimination. It found that the SLOs followed established procedures, provided reasonable justifications and applied scoring matrices focused on merit and operational needs. Safeguards were also in place to help reduce potential bias. 

The Complainants further alleged that the SLOs failed to follow employment equity guidelines from a 2016 memo. The Tribunal determined that the memo was not mandatory and that the SLOs reasonably prioritized merit-based decisions. 

In conclusion, while the officers genuinely believed their race influenced their promotion outcomes, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support their claims. It concluded that the RCMP’s promotion process was fair, with adequate safeguards against bias, and dismissed the complaints.

Starr et al v. Stevens, 2024 CHRT 127

Three women, A.B., Melanie Stevens and Francine Starr, the Complainants, said that Maxwell Stevens, the Respondent, sexually harassed them. The women worked together at the Band Council office. Mr. Stevens was an elected Band Councillor and manager. He was suspended after an independent investigation found he sexually harassed the women. The Tribunal found Mr. Stevens harassed the women at work. 

Mr. Stevens’ conduct was unwelcome and degrading. It included unwanted comments and gestures as well as touching and physical contact without the women’s consent. Mr. Stevens’ harassing conduct was sexual in nature and was therefore based on a prohibited ground. Mr. Stevens’ behaviour was repeated, persistent and serious. It poisoned the women’s work environment. The harassment continued after the women reported it to the Band manager. It caused the women significant and ongoing harm that impacted all aspects of their lives, including their ability to work. 

Mr. Stevens was ordered to stop sexually harassing other women. He was also ordered to pay $20,000 for pain and suffering and $20,000 for his wilful and reckless conduct to each of A.B., Ms. Stevens and Ms. Starr. He was ordered to pay Ms. Starr a year of her lost wages. She was the only one who asked for lost wages. Mr. Stevens must also take a Commission-approved course on sexual harassment and gender at his own expense. 

The Tribunal declined to supervise its orders because that is the responsibility of the Federal Court. However, the Tribunal noted the women would benefit from the Commission’s support in enforcing the Tribunal’s orders.

Karas v. Health Canada, 2024 CHRT 133

The Tribunal found that Health Canada’s role regulating Canadian Blood Services is not a service within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It therefore dismissed the complaint that Christopher Karas, the Complainant, filed against Health Canada, the Respondent. 

Mr. Karas challenged Canadian Blood Services’ blood donation deferral policy that prevented men who have sex with men from donating blood for a period of time after they last had sex with a man. Mr. Karas said the policy discriminated against him based on his sexual orientation as a gay man. Mr. Karas also filed a complaint against Canadian Blood Services. That complaint settled and was not part of this decision. 

The Tribunal highlighted that not all government actions are services under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Health Canada did not have a service relationship with Mr. Karas. Health Canada’s role was to supervise Canadian Blood Services. The Blood Regulations limited Health Canada’s supervisory role to issues of human safety and the safety of blood. 

In addition, the Blood Regulations did not allow Health Canada to be more involved in the policy. Under the regulations, Health Canada could not consider factors other than human safety and the safety of blood. The source of any discrimination by Health Canada was the Blood Regulations. The Canadian Human Rights Act does not permit a direct challenge to regulations. Therefore, Mr. Karas’s complaint could not succeed and had to be dismissed. 

Judicial Review: Marcovecchio v. Air Canada

In 2024, the Federal Court upheld one of the Tribunal’s earlier decision in Marcovecchio v. Air Canada, 2023 CHRT 56. 

Erik Marcovecchio was employed by Air Canada at its call centre. Mr. Marcovecchio suffered a workplace injury in 2016 that left him with permanent hearing limitations. In 2018, he worked an accommodated role as a service agent but sustained a head injury in 2019, resulting in temporary work restrictions. In April 2019, he applied for and was offered a “security operations specialist” position in the Passenger Service System, which he believed aligned with his limitations. Nonetheless, Air Canada’s disability manager made his own personal determination that the job would not be suitable for Mr. Marcovecchio’s limitations and revoked the offer without assessing whether accommodations could be made. Mr. Marcovecchio remained on temporary assignments until he was laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. However, the security operations specialist role continued during the pandemic.

Tribunal Decision (Marcovecchio v. Air Canada, 2023 CHRT 56)

The Tribunal concluded that Air Canada discriminated against Mr. Marcovecchio by rescinding his job offer due to his disability without conducting an individualized assessment or exploring reasonable accommodations. It also rejected Air Canada’s jurisdictional challenge, affirming that the matter properly fell under its mandate.

Judicial Review (Air Canada v. Marcovecchio, 2024 FC 1639)

The Federal Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision. 

The Court rejected Air Canada’s argument that the Tribunal ignored an agreement that the role was not possible with Mr. Marcovecchio’s limitations. The Court found that the Tribunal engaged with the agreement but preferred the evidence of witnesses who had more knowledge of the job. 

The Court rejected Air Canada’s argument that an employee has an obligation to disclose disabilities when seeking a new position. The discrimination only happened when Air Canada revoked the job offer. 

The Court rejected Air Canada’s argument that only the provincial workers’ compensation board and labour tribunal could address issues arising from workplace injuries. The Tribunal did not interfere in the jurisdiction of provincial tribunals because it focused only on whether Air Canada discriminated under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Tribunal found that Air Canada denied Mr. Marcovecchio’s the position based on his permanent hearing limitations that were no longer part of an active workers’ compensation process.

SECTION 13: National Human Rights Tribunal Forum

This year, we reinstated the National Human Rights Tribunal Forum, which had been paused due to the pandemic. We met with our provincial and territorial counterparts to share best practices, templates and training materials and to foster ongoing collaboration and support among tribunal colleagues in human rights adjudication. 

Our discussions focused on tribunal accountability, effective training for new members and case management strategies. We also covered access to justice and working with Indigenous advisory circles to support culturally appropriate practices for Indigenous participants in the hearing process. 

Learning from each other promotes our collective goal of providing quality adjudication and timely service to Canadians in human rights cases. 

We look forward to continuing to meet with our provincial and territorial counterparts every two years.

SECTION 14: Pay Equity Act

Parliament passed the Pay Equity Act (PEA) in 2018. The PEA requires federally regulated employers with at least 10 employees to develop a pay equity plan within three years of its coming into force. The PEA was expected to come into force in 2020, but it came into force in 2021. The delay provided employers more time to do the complex task of developing their pay equity plans. The deadline to develop pay equity plans was September 3, 2024, although employers could ask the Pay Equity Commissioner for an extension. Even with extensions, most employers are expected to complete their plans in 2025. 

As employers implement plans, pay equity disputes are more likely to arise. The plans for large employers can involve millions of dollars. Until now, the Pay Equity Commissioner has mainly addressed preliminary issues. However, as more substantive decisions are issued, the likelihood of parties appealing them to the Tribunal increases. The Tribunal has only received one PEA referral so far (Unifor v. SaskTel, 2023 CHRT-PEA 1, noted in the Tribunal’s 2023 Annual Report), but more cases are anticipated in 2025. 

Given these stakes, it is important for the Tribunal to address any cases it receives quickly. The parties involved in pay equity are working with well-resourced teams supported by compensation and statistical modelling experts. The Tribunal is preparing to address appeals effectively with the resources currently available.

SECTION 15: Looking ahead

Our priority will continue to be to make our processes faster and easier to use. We will use alternative dispute resolution where we can to resolve complaints and simplify complex cases. We will also continue to work on how we case manage and triage files so that the Tribunal can adjudicate complaints in a proportionate way.

Our new Tribunal members significantly increase the Tribunal’s capacity. Our focus is now on efficiently moving these cases to timely hearings and closing files as quickly as possible. We will also continue training our members and encourage their collaboration to deliver quality adjudication.

The work of the Tribunal is accomplished by members and mediators and the secretariat staff, without whom we could not do our work. My thanks to the whole team at the Tribunal who truly cares about the work and the people it serves.

SECTION 16: Tribunal composition

Chairperson: 

• Jennifer Khurana

Vice-Chairperson: 

• Athanasios Hadjis

Full-time Members

• Ashley Bressette-Martinez, Ontario
• Sarah Churchill-Joly, Ontario
• Colleen Harrington, Yukon
• John Hutchings, Ontario
• Anthony Morgan, Ontario
• Jo-Anne Pickel, Ontario
• Gary Stein, Ontario
• Kathryn Raymond, Nova Scotia

Part-time Members

• Catherin Fagan, Newfoundland and Labrador
• Marie Langlois, Quebec
• Kirsten Mercer, Ontario
• Naseem Mithoowani, Ontario
• Jennifer Orange, Ontario
• Jay Sengupta, Ontario
• Daniel Simonian, Ontario
• Paul Singh, British Columbia

SECTION 17: Contact information

Executive Director
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
240 Sparks Street, 6th Floor West
Ottawa, Ontario  K1A 1J4

Telephone: 613-995-1707
Toll free: 1-844-899-3604
Fax: 613-995-3484

E-mail: Registrar-Greffier@chrt-tcdp.gc.ca
Website: www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca