Human Rights Factor: Influential is Enough: Not The Sole Reason

Influential is Enough

In this context, the applicant must show that the human rights factor was influential and not the sole or primary reason. ¹ This concept has been well established. ²

The Ontario Court of Appeal spoke to this issue in its 2023 decision, again noting that the alleged wrongdoing need not be the sole cause or even the predominant cause of the conduct in question. The Ontario Court of Appeal onfirmed this concept in these words:

  Under the third branch of the analysis for a prima facie case of discrimination, the applicant need only prove a connection between the prohibited ground and the adverse treatment. The connection does not need to be causal. Further, the connection between the adverse treatment and the prohibited ground can co-exist with other non-discriminatory factors. The prohibited ground need not be the only reason for the adverse treatment, or even the predominant reason: Québec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Centre), 2015 SCC 39, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 789, at paras. 43-52; Midwives, at para. 102; Pieters, at paras. 59-60.

In the Imperial Oil case, the applicant admitted that he had misled the company as to his eligibility to work in Canada when he applied for the position. The company had asserted that this was one of the reasons that he had been terminated. This being said, the decision was also influenced by his lack of Canadian citizenship, which allowed the claim to succeed: ³

As I have outlined above in the section of these reasons addressing principles of interpretation and application of human rights legislation, in order to establish a claim of discrimination, a claimant is required to show, inter alia, a “connection” between the prohibited ground and the adverse treatment they experienced. A claimant is not required to show that the prohibited ground was the only reason for the treatment, or even the predominant reason.

The same principle was applied in an Ontario civil case in which the plaintiff has sued to seek a human rights remedy. ⁴

👤 About the Author •
📚 Human Rights Index •
🎥 YouTube •
⬆️ Back to Top

1. Supreme Court of Canada in Janzen v Platy, Human Rights Tribunal in Hummel v Transport Training (Cleghorn)
2. April 1987 Divisional Court decision of Scott v Foster Wheeler 8 CHRR D/4179, sitting on appeal from the decision of the Board of Inquiry; The Federal Court of Appeal in Holden v Canadian National Railway 1990 14 CHRR D/12
3. Imperial Oil v Haseeb 
4. Wilson v Solis Mexican Foods. The Court agreed with the application of a human rights principle of construction, namely, that the alleged violation of the Code need be shown to be but an influential factor and not the sole factor in the decision to terminate. Ontario is the only jurisdiction to allow for a civil action to seek a human rights remedy when accompanied by a second civil claim.