Search by
Background and employment history
Timothy Burland was employed by Precise ParkLink Inc., an Ontario corporation operating in Toronto, from July 2014 until December 2022. By March 2020, he was working in Ottawa as Branch Manager–Services. He suffered from a suppressed immune system, increasing his risk of complications from viral infections. At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020, he submitted a medical note from his family doctor recommending that he work from home as an accommodation of his disability. Precise rejected the request for remote work and instead placed him on unpaid sick leave effective March 17, 2020. Burland’s doctor later cleared him to return to work without restrictions as of May 12, 2020, but Precise declined to recall him. Instead, the company converted his unpaid sick leave to a deemed unpaid Infectious Disease Emergency Leave (IDEL) under the Employment Standards Act, 2000. He remained on IDEL until July 30, 2022, after which he sought clarification about his employment status, and Precise ultimately dismissed him without cause effective December 30, 2022.
The Human Rights Tribunal application
On November 3, 2020, while still employed but on IDEL, Burland commenced an application before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. In that HRTO application, he alleged disability discrimination and reprisal covering the period March 17, 2020, to May 12, 2020. He claimed that during this period he was ready and able to work subject to reasonable accommodation, that Precise failed to accommodate his disability by refusing to allow him to work from home, and that the refusal to bring him back in May 2020 was an act of reprisal for having requested accommodation. The remedies he sought before the Tribunal included general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, as well as special damages for lost wages flowing from the alleged Code violations during that defined period. The HRTO application did not concern his eventual dismissal in December 2022, which occurred more than two years after the alleged discriminatory and reprisal conduct at issue in the Tribunal proceeding.
The parallel civil action in the Superior Court
After his termination, Burland commenced a separate civil action on March 17, 2023, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In that claim, he alleged wrongful dismissal and breach of contract, asserting that he was contractually entitled to reasonable notice of dismissal, or pay in lieu, for a period of nine months. He further pleaded that Precise breached its duty to act in good faith in the manner of dismissal, claiming aggravated and punitive damages for how his employment was terminated. The statement of claim in the civil action was framed as a classic wrongful dismissal and bad-faith termination case. It did not expressly or implicitly seek remedies under s. 46.1 of the Human Rights Code, nor did it allege Code violations as part of the cause of action. Importantly, the factual core of the civil action focused on the events and consequences surrounding his December 30, 2022 termination, which is temporally and substantively distinct from the 2020 accommodation dispute before the HRTO.
The HRTO’s s. 34(11) dismissal decision
On June 9, 2023, after the civil action had been issued, Precise asked the HRTO to defer, and ultimately to dismiss, the Tribunal application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code. Section 34(11) prevents a person from bringing or maintaining a HRTO application if there is a civil proceeding in which the person is seeking a court order with respect to the same alleged human rights infringement, or if a court has already finally determined the issue or the matter has been settled. The statutory provision is designed to eliminate duplicative proceedings that involve the same alleged Code wrongs and remedies. The HRTO adjudicator, Ashley Deathe, concluded that s. 34(11) was engaged. In paragraph 15 of her decision, she held that in both the HRTO application and the civil action the decision maker would need to address the applicant’s entitlement to lost wages, his mitigation efforts, and the reasonableness of the employer’s treatment of him, including the decision to place him on unpaid leave. On that basis, she found the proceedings sufficiently related such that the civil remedy sought in the wrongful dismissal action was “with respect to” the alleged Code infringement. She then concluded that, because a civil proceeding seeking such remedies had been commenced and had not been finally determined or withdrawn, the Tribunal had no discretion and was required by s. 34(11) to dismiss the HRTO application.
Judicial review and standard of review
Burland applied to the Divisional Court for judicial review of the HRTO decision. The Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) had jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Procedure Act. Although s. 45.8 of the Human Rights Code uses “patently unreasonable” language, the parties agreed and the court accepted that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness, consistent with appellate authority such as Ontario (Health) v. Association of Ontario Midwives. On judicial review, Burland argued that the Tribunal had correctly identified the legal test under s. 34(11) but failed to apply it properly to the facts, because it never meaningfully analyzed the core issues and factual bases of each proceeding to determine whether they truly overlapped. He maintained that the adjudicator’s brief treatment in paragraph 15 of her reasons amounted to a peremptory conclusion lacking an adequate chain of reasoning. Precise, in contrast, argued that the decision was thorough and well reasoned, that deference was owed to the Tribunal, and that the adjudicator had properly considered the factual matrix, policy rationale behind s. 34(11), and relevant case law in concluding that the two proceedings were sufficiently related to trigger a mandatory dismissal.
The Divisional Court’s analysis of s. 34(11)
Justice Fregeau, writing for a unanimous panel, framed the central question as whether the HRTO decision was reasonable. The court began by emphasizing the purpose of s. 34(11): to eliminate truly duplicative civil and Tribunal proceedings that allege human rights violations and seek remedies for the same alleged wrongs, not to bar distinct claims that arise from different factual contexts. The court reiterated that an explicit reference to s. 46.1 of the Code in the civil claim is not required for s. 34(11) to apply; what matters is whether, in substance, the civil proceeding is seeking a remedy “with respect to” the same alleged infringement of Code rights. To make that determination, a decision-maker must evaluate the facts and issues in each proceeding, identify the substance of each claim, and determine whether there is material duplication in the factual matrix, legal issues, and remedies sought. This approach, reflected in cases such as Ingram v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, is aimed at identifying the “root of the dispute” and avoiding contradictory rulings on the same underlying human rights controversy. Examining the pleadings, the court held that the HRTO application clearly focused on alleged disability discrimination and reprisal between March and May 2020, based on the refusal to accommodate and return the applicant to work. The remedies were general damages for dignity and special damages for lost wages related to that period. By contrast, the civil action addressed a nine-month reasonable notice period and the employer’s duty of good faith in the manner of the December 30, 2022 termination, including claims for aggravated and punitive damages. The action made no reference—explicit or implied—to Code violations or to the 2020 accommodation dispute. The court stressed that the factual underpinnings were distinct and separated by more than two years, with different alleged wrongs and different remedial focuses in each forum.
Reasonableness review and the insufficiency of the Tribunal’s reasons
Applying the Vavilov framework for reasonableness, the court assessed whether the Tribunal’s decision bore the hallmarks of justification, transparency and intelligibility, and whether it was justified in light of the relevant legal and factual constraints. The court acknowledged that judicial review does not demand perfection, and that superficial or peripheral flaws are not enough to render a decision unreasonable. However, it observed that reasons which merely recite the statutory language, summarize submissions, and then announce a conclusion will rarely assist a reviewing court. Instead, the decision-maker must demonstrate analysis, inference, and judgment. In this case, the court found that the adjudicator failed at a fundamental step: she did not properly identify the substance of each proceeding before concluding that they were “sufficiently related.” By confining the operative reasoning to a short paragraph that grouped both proceedings together on the basis that each involved some consideration of lost wages, mitigation, and the reasonableness of the employer’s conduct, the HRTO did not grapple with the distinct time frames, distinct alleged wrongs, and distinct remedial foundations. That omission went to the heart of the s. 34(11) inquiry. The court characterized the adjudicator’s statement that “the two proceedings are sufficiently related such that the remedy sought in the Action is with respect to the alleged Code infringement” as a peremptory conclusion unsupported by adequate explanation. Because the identification of the substance of each claim is central to applying s. 34(11), the failure to carry out that analysis was not a minor or peripheral defect; it was a serious shortcoming bearing directly on the merits of the decision. As a result, the Divisional Court held that the HRTO’s dismissal of the application as barred by s. 34(11) was unreasonable.
Outcome and monetary consequences
Having found the HRTO decision unreasonable, the Divisional Court granted the application for judicial review and remitted Burland’s HRTO application back to the Tribunal for adjudication in accordance with its reasons. This means the human rights claim concerning alleged disability discrimination and reprisal in 2020 will now proceed on its merits before the HRTO. The wrongful dismissal civil action concerning the 2022 termination remains separate and continues in the Superior Court; no damages were assessed or awarded in that action as part of this judicial review decision, and the quantum of any human rights damages before the HRTO also remains undetermined. As to costs, the parties had reached an agreement, and the court ordered that Precise ParkLink Inc. pay to Timothy Burland an all-inclusive amount of $10,000.00 by way of costs. There were no other quantified damages, monetary awards, or costs determined in this judgment. Accordingly, the successful party in this Divisional Court proceeding is the applicant, Timothy Burland, with the total monetary amount ordered in his favour limited to the agreed all-inclusive costs award of $10,000, while any future human rights or wrongful dismissal damages have not yet been fixed and cannot presently be determined.
Download documents
Applicant
Respondent
Court
Ontario Superior Court of Justice - Divisional CourtCase Number
DC-25-00002983-0000Practice Area
Labour & Employment LawAmount
$ 10,000Winner
ApplicantTrial Start Date