Advanced Search

Harnois v. Deputy Head (Deputy Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities) - 2026 FPSLREB 19 - 2026-02-27

In both domains, the Board may hear allegations and render decisions relative to the Canadian Human Rights Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6; CHRA) and the Accessible Canada Act (S.C. 2019, c. 10; ACA).   [...]  ... [...] (2) Corrective action taken under subsection (1) may include an order for relief in accordance with paragraph 53(2)(e) or subsection 53(3) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. (2) Les ordonnances prévues à l’alinéa 53(2)e) et au paragraphe 53(3) de la Loi canadienne sur les droits de la personne peuvent faire partie   [...]  [72] Moreover, in 2019, Parliament gave the Board concurrent jurisdiction with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to interpret and apply the ACA for complaints and grievances.

Parkes v. Deputy Head (Department of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2026 FPSLREB 7 - 2026-01-27

[34] The complainant cited Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Department of National Health and Welfare), 1998 CanLII 7740 (FC) at paras. 19 to 22, to argue that I should have allowed her to adduce those documents as a form of circumstantial evidence.   [...]  The tribunal is empowered to interpret and apply the Canadian Human Rights Act, RS 1985, c H-6, in complaints brought under section 77.   [...]  The complainant in proceedings before human rights tribunals must show a prima facie case of discrimination. A prima facie case in this context is one which covers the allegations made and which, if they are believed, is complete and sufficient to justify a verdict in the complainant’s favour in the absence of an answer

Peterson v. Treasury Board (Statistics Canada) - 2026 FPSLREB 4 - 2026-01-13

Again, the grievor was told that he had the right to a union representative; again, the grievor decided not to bring one.   [...]  The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal recently summarized the legal rules in White v. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Ltd., 2025 CHRT 67 at paras. 63 and 64, as follows:   [...]  Expert medical evidence by a physician is not required to prove the existence of a disability in the human rights context (Marshall v Membertou First Nation, 2021 CHRT 36 at para 125).

Redmond v. Treasury Board (Canada Border Services Agency) - 2025 FPSLREB 179 - 2025-12-31

A second grievance alleging a breach of the Canadian Human Rights Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6) was also filed but was withdrawn prior to the hearing in this matter.   [...]  She maintained that she could still not remember if the grievor told her to leave but admitted that the video confirmed that right after talking with him, she left in the direction that he pointed to.

Perinparajah v. Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board - 2025 FPSLREB 177 - 2025-12-24

On the advice of Human Resources, she revised the narrative assessment and the statement of merit criteria to include that fact.   [...]  ... 20. On April 24, 2024, [the Director, Business Management, at the RPD] informed me that the Human Resources advisor (“HR”) had advised her that Ms. Green met the applicable Employment Equity (“EE”) criterion and asked whether we wished to include this as part of the selection criteria.   [...]  While the respondent’s response to the complainant’s initial allegations suggested that employment equity considerations were behind the appointee’s appointment, it is not longer taking that position — rightfully so. [26] I do not endorse adding or relying on employment equity considerations for an appointment when the

Pham v. Treasury Board (Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development) - 2025 FPSLREB 175 - 2025-12-19

B. The Canadian Human Rights Act [12] The grievor stated in his grievance that the employer’s actions violated the following sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6; CHRA):   [...]  [172] The grievor referred me to British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal v. Schrenk, 2017 SCC 62. [173] As set out in Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FC 445, human rights legislation must be given broad and purposive interpretations.   [...]  [175] Human rights legislation is inherently incorporated into collective agreements.

Raymond v. Deputy Head (Canada Border Services Agency) - 2025 FPSLREB 173 - 2025-12-17

The employer argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievance based on s. 208(2) of the FPSLRA, which states that an employee may not present an individual grievance in respect of which an administrative procedure for redress is provided under any Act of Parliament, other than the Canadian Human Rights Act   [...]  The grievance is a typical termination grievance: it states that he grieves the decision to terminate his employment, reserves the right to rely on any pertinent part of the collective agreement, and seeks reinstatement and that he be made whole.   [...]  208(2) An employee may not present an individual grievance in respect of which an administrative procedure for redress is provided under any Act of Parliament, other than the Canadian Human Rights Act. 208(2) Le fonctionnaire ne peut présenter de grief individuel si un recours administratif de réparation lui est ouvert sous

Lapointe v. Canada Revenue Agency - 2025 FPSLREB 166 - 2025-12-12

He believed that doing so was within his right. It resulted in him exceeding the amount of time that he should have taken to complete his files.   [...]  By doing that, he did not respect the Taxpayer Bill of Rights and risked additional time and cost by having taxpayers file appeals that the division could have settled.   [...]  He believed that doing so was within his right. It resulted in him exceeding the amount of time that he should have taken to complete his files.

Hau v. Treasury Board (Department of National Defence) - 2025 FPSLREB 165 - 2025-12-10

Under it, all DND employees were required to be fully vaccinated unless they were granted an exemption based on a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6; CHRA). Employees who were not granted an exemption were required to attest to their vaccination status.

Belovich v. Deputy Head (Department of National Defence) - 2025 FPSLREB 163 - 2025-12-05

[16] This grievance can only be characterized as an allegation of a breach of the Canadian Human Rights Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6). To proceed to a hearing before the Board, the human rights allegation must be linked to the Board’s statutory jurisdiction.   [...]  [18] This grievance based solely on an alleged human rights violation falls squarely within the principles of Chamberlain.   [...]  However, this individual grievance raises a stand-alone issue of human rights discrimination. As such, s. 209 provides no avenue for recourse.

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Treasury Board - 2025 FPSLREB 161 - 2025-12-03

(a) where there is another administrative procedure for redress provided by or under any act of Parliament other than the Canadian Human Rights Act to deal with the employee’s specific complaint, such procedure must be followed, and   [...]  These rights include providing for the allocation and effective use of human resources (s. 11.1(1)(a); determining and regulating the pay of employees, the hours of work and leave and any related matters (s. 11.1(1)(c )); and providing for any other matters necessary for effective human resources management (s. 11.1(1)(j)).  [...]  This is a right that accrues to an employee, and it is up to any individual employee to pursue that right.

Ndur v. Canadian Association of Professional Employees - 2025 FPSLREB 159 - 2025-11-27

The complainant argued that the respondent did not disclose that the employer’s failure to accommodate him represented a violation of the collective agreements and the Canadian Human Rights Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6). He submitted that he discovered the violation through his own research in October 2024.   [...]  He contends that the respondent did not disclose that the employer’s failure to accommodate him represented a violation of the collective agreements and the Canadian Human Rights Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6; CHRA). He submits that he discovered the violation through his own research in October 2024.   [...]  The lack of knowledge of a right to recourse does not set aside the time limits imposed by the Act (see Hérold v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2009 PSLRB 132 at para. 14).

Mohammed v. Deputy Head (Department of the Environment) - 2025 FPSLREB 155 - 2025-11-24

selection process and the selection of the successful candidate by email dated April 20, 2023, which was sent to a human resources official. While the narrative assessment justifying the selection of the successful candidate is undated, he testified that he prepared it on or “right around the time” of April 20, 2023.   [...]  The complainant did not identify how his right to make a complaint was prejudiced by the delay publishing the notice of appointment.   [...]  However, it can still be a useful framework in the right case. As the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal stated in Emmett v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2018 CHRT 23 at paras. 56 to 58: