|
Human Rights (Ont) - Employment. Brandt Tractor Ltd. v Melissa Morasse [successor employer refuses to consider for re-hiring]
In Brandt Tractor Ltd. v Melissa Morasse (Div Ct, 2026) the Divisional Court dismissed a successor employer's JR, that brought against an HRTO finding that "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".
Here the court considers this to be an issue of hiring discrimination:[6] First, ss. 5(1) of the Code guarantees every person “equal treatment with respect to employment”. The Tribunal correctly found that ss.5(1) does not apply only to employers: Millar v Power Tax Corporation, 2012 HRTO 1578 at para.13.
[7] The Tribunal agreed that it had no power to add as a party a successor organization if it had nothing to do with Ms. Morasse or the alleged act of discrimination. The Tribunal distinguished the caselaw Brandt relied upon as all involving successor organizations which entered the fray between two and five years after the alleged act of discrimination took place and clearly had nothing to do with the applicants or the applications. The Tribunal found:[28] Mr. Switzer [Brandt’s Chief Operating Officer] told the Tribunal that Brandt used a “cascade approach” in that they began by hiring Nortrax’s high-level managers. Once hired, those managers “would be involved in getting the right people to the right spot”. He agreed that there were ongoing discussions between Nortrax and Brandt and that a strong recommendation from Nortrax was a factor in determining who should get what job. Additionally, he said that, as part of its due diligence, Brandt obtained Nortrax’s human resources files and Brandt consulted with Nortrax’s local managers to guide them in the right direction. Of particular importance was the way prospective employees interacted with customers and got along with other employees. Mr. Switzer agreed that, when Brandt decided who not to hire, it was Nortrax’s job to let them know. He added that Nortrax and Brandt had engaged in a “heavily cooperative process”.
[29] Finally, and most strikingly, Nortrax’s letter to the applicant (Exhibit 3, Tab 7, p.65/150) stated that her employment was being terminated because “Brandt does not have a position available for you in its business, and that you have not received an offer of employment from Brandt”.
[30] For the above reasons, it simply cannot be said that Brandt had nothing to do with the applicant or the Application. Rather, it is clear to the Tribunal that Nortrax and Brandt worked in close co-operation to determine which employees would be hired by Brandt and which employees would be terminated. As such, both Nortrax and Brandt are properly parties to the Application. [8] Given these factual findings, there was nothing unreasonable in the Tribunal’s conclusion that Nortrax and Brandt were properly parties to the application. Brandt’s status as a successor organization played no role in the determination that it was a proper party. Rather, it was Brandt’s own allegedly discriminatory conduct in its hiring process that was the basis of that determination.
|
