Pursues substantially same facts with civil court, human rights tribunal
An Ontario worker who alleged age-based harassment at work lost his human rights case after the tribunal ruled he couldn't pursue substantially the same facts in both civil court and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
Adjudicator Joseph Tascona dismissed Girard Banks' application against A.P. Plasman Inc. on Jan. 23, 2026.
He confirmed that section 34(11) of the Ontario Human Rights Code operates as a mandatory bar when the facts and issues overlap, even when the civil claim doesn't explicitly mention discrimination.
Banks filed his tribunal application in July 2018, alleging that the company’s employees engaged in harassing treatment relating to his age that caused him to file a workplace harassment complaint in May 2017 and go off work at the end of July 2017.
He sought monetary compensation for lost income and damages for violation of his human rights, along with specialized training in the workplace.
A year later, he filed a civil lawsuit claiming constructive dismissal and seeking damages for wrongful dismissal/breach of contract, bad faith termination, intentional or negligent affliction of mental distress, and punitive and/or aggravated damages, stating his claim was "exclusive of the Ontario Human Rights Code."
The tribunal found that both proceedings stemmed from events occurring during the same May 2017 to July 2017...
PORTLAND, Maine (WGME) -- A week after employees at the Holy Donut on Park Avenue in Portland told the company they were looking to unionize, the company now says those workers made false accusati...