The recent decision in Grandinetti v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation offers valuable insights into the limits of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s jurisdiction in employment-related disability discrimination claims. While the applicant alleged the rescission of her job offer constituted discrimination based on disability, the Tribunal ultimately dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction. This case highlights the importance of presenting a clear, factual link between an adverse employment action and a protected ground under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Job Applicant Alleged Revocation of Condition Offer of Employment Revoked Due to Accommodation Request

The applicant in Grandinetti applied for a one-year contract position with the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation. After successfully progressing through the recruitment process, she received a conditional offer of employment on June 15, 2022, with an expected start date of July 4. That start date was later moved to July 20 by mutual agreement.

On June 22, 2022, the applicant raised questions regarding accommodations for a disability. She alleged that after inquiring about these accommodations, the employer mishandled her request and eventually rescinded the job offer because of her disability. This, she argued, constituted discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

Employer Argued Offer Rescinded Due to Applicant’s Failure to Meet Pre-Employment Requirements

The employer denied the discrimination allegations, stating the offer was rescinded not because of any disability-related accommodation request but because the applicant failed to complete mandatory pre-employment requirements in a timely fashion. These included a security screening and reference checks.

The employer explained that although it had initiated a standard accommodation process involving a third-party disability management provider, the applicant failed to engage fully. Specifically, the applicant did not submit the necessary information on time, missed deadlines despite extensions, and took two vacations during the pre-screening and accommodation process. Meanwhile, the position remained vacant due to maternity leave, and the employer needed to fill it urgently. When the conditions of the job offer remained unmet more than two months later, the employer withdrew the offer on September 9, 2022.

Unfairness or Adverse Treatment Not Automatically Discrimination: Ontario Human Rights Tribunal

The Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the application because it did not fall within its jurisdiction. The Tribunal emphasized that for an application to proceed, there must be more than just an allegation of discrimination. Beyond a simple assertion, there must be some factual basis linking the respondent’s adverse actions to the applicant’s Code-protected ground.

The Tribunal emphasized that mere unfairness or adverse treatment does not equate to discrimination under the Code and made clear that it does not assume every negative outcome involving someone with a disability is discriminatory in nature.

What the Applicant Failed to Prove

The applicant alleged the process had been going smoothly until she asked for accommodations, suggesting a causal link between her accommodation request and the rescinded offer. However, the Tribunal found no factual evidence to support that assertion. It noted the following:

• The employer had, in fact, initiated an accommodation process via a third-party provider;
• The applicant did not comply with requests for information necessary to assess and implement accommodations; and
• The reference check delays were due to the applicant’s inability to provide acceptable references, a requirement clearly unrelated to disability unless further substantiated.

The applicant also argued that the employer’s refusal to accept volunteer references was discriminatory. However, the Tribunal noted that the applicant provided no evidence showing this policy was applied in a discriminatory way or disproportionately affected persons with disabilities.

No Automatic Investigation of Every Discrimination Allegation

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario emphasized that it does not automatically investigate every allegation of discrimination. Applicants must present a “factual basis” demonstrating that a Code-enumerated ground (in this case, disability) was a factor in the respondent’s adverse action. As established in case law, a sincerely held belief is not, in itself, sufficient to prove discrimination.

Given the absence of such a factual basis, the Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction over the application. Accordingly, it dismissed the complaint without the need for an oral hearing, pursuant to section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code.

Lessons for Employees Alleging Discrimination in Ontario

The Tribunal’s decision in Grandinetti holds several key takeaways for employees alleging discrimination by an employer.

1. You Must Show More Than Just Adverse Treatment

It is insufficient to demonstrate that you were treated unfairly or that a negative outcome followed your accommodation request. To establish jurisdiction, your complaint must include clear facts linking your treatment to a Code-protected ground, such as disability, race, or gender. The Human Rights Tribunal will not infer discrimination based on timing alone.

2. Allegations Must Be Supported by Facts

The Tribunal requires more than personal beliefs or speculation. Documentation, communications, and witness statements that show discriminatory intent or effects are critical. In this case, the applicant failed to provide any such evidence.

3. Participate Fully in the Accommodation Process

Employees seeking accommodations have a responsibility to engage in good faith. Delays in communication, failure to provide required documentation, or inconsistent participation may weaken both the accommodation process and any related discrimination claim.

4. Reference Checks and Other Employment Conditions Still Apply

Even if you require accommodations, you are still expected to meet the essential conditions of employment. If an employer refuses to bend neutral policies, such as accepting non-work references, it is not automatically discriminatory unless it disproportionately affects a protected group and is not reasonably justified.

5. Suspicious Timing Alone Is Not Enough

While suspicious timing (such as a job offer being rescinded after an accommodation request) can raise questions, it is not definitive proof of discrimination. The Human Rights Tribunal will look for a clear, fact-based connection, not just coincidence.

Grosman Gale Fletcher Hopkins LLP: Toronto Employment Lawyers Providing Trusted Advice on Employee Human Rights

Grandinetti v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation illustrates the high threshold that applicants must meet to bring a successful human rights claim in Ontario. While it is critical that employees feel empowered to request disability accommodations, they must also understand the evidentiary burden required to sustain a claim under the Human Rights Code.

The experienced employment lawyers at Grosman Gale Fletcher Hopkins LLP represent employers and employees facing employment and workplace-related human rights issues. We assess whether your particular situation meets the threshold for discrimination and create robust legal solutions to protect your rights. Conveniently located in downtown Toronto, we have proudly served clients in employment and labour law matters for over 40 years. To book a consultation, please call (416) 364-9599 or contact us online.