In Brandt Tractor Ltd. v Melissa Morasse, 2026 ONSC 992 , Justice Backhouse head the following fact situation in a audial review of a HRT decision:
“Ms. Morasse was an employee of Nortrax Canada Inc.(“Nortrax”)2 She was on maternity leave when Nortrax sold its assets to Brandt and ceased to carry on business. Brandt hired all but 30 of the 650 employees of Nortrax. None of Nortrax employees who were on leave during the time of the asset transfer were contacted, interviewed or offered positions. The Tribunal found that Brandt discriminated against Ms. Morasse with respect to employment on the basis of sex and family status, contrary to the Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c. H.19 (the “Code”) when it did not consider Ms. Morasse for employment with Brandt and her employment with Nortrax was terminated.”
The Court dismissed Brandt’s application finding that the HRT was correct in :
1. Even though Brandt as the successor employer had no legal relationship with the Complainant , it was a proper party to the complaint because :”
“Rather, it was Brandt’s own allegedly discriminatory conduct in its hiring process that wasthe basis of that determination.”
2. Even though Brandt claimed they did not know that the Complainant was on maternity leave, ” Brandt knew or ought to have known that its policy not to interview anyone on leave would affect persons away on protected leave. “
3.” Third, the Supreme Court of Canada has long recognized that identical treatment may resultin inequality.3 The fact that Brandt’s hiring policy was applied to all persons on leave andwas based on business-related considerations did not render it non-discriminatory”
4. “the prohibited ground need only be a factor and not the sole factor in the decision that led to the adverse impact “
For a copy of this decision, email me at barry@barryfisher.ca
To book a mediation, go to my calendar at www.barryfisher.ca
To access the Wrongful Dismissal Database, go to www.wddonline.ca