Applicant 'attempting to re‑litigate this matter,' says Ontario tribunal of discrimination claim
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) has dismissed a Humber Polytechnic employee’s complaint alleging sex discrimination and reprisal after the dispute had already been resolved through a union grievance settlement.
In Romanowska v. Humber Polytechnic, 2026, Vice‑chair François Henrie held that applicant Katarzyna Romanowska could not re‑litigate issues that had been raised and effectively settled in earlier proceedings under her collective agreement.
Romanowska began working at Humber in 2001 and was, at the time of her application, a Program Solutions IT Specialist in the Faculty of Applied Sciences and Technology. She was part of the support staff bargaining unit represented by Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) Local 563.
Pay and classification dispute
In February 2019, she filed a grievance through the union, alleging that her Position Description Form did not accurately reflect her duties. She claimed that she should be paid at pay band I rather than band G, with retroactivity back to December 2006.
After a Step 1 meeting, Humber’s HR confirmed an adjustment of her pay band from G to I with retroactive payment to the grievance date. The parties could not agree on the retroactive period, and the matter moved to Step 2.
At a June 2019 Step 2 meeting, Romanowska alleged, for the first time, discrimination based on sex and gender because two colleagues had been re‑evaluated to band I in 2016 while her position had not.
Grievance settlement and internal investigation
The union referred the grievance to arbitration, but discussions continued. Romanowska also contacted the institution’s Centre of Human Rights, and the matter was investigated by a Human Resources Business Partner, Mrs. Sibbio.
In an October 2020 memorandum, Sibbio concluded that the IT Specialist job was appropriately classified at band I, that retroactive payment had been provided back to the grievance date, and that the Centre “deemed the matter a pay issue”. She further found “no evidence to support that the transfer was reprisal for a grievance as the transfer communications were prior to the step two hearing”.
On Dec. 1, 2020, after receiving a draft, Romanowska, Humber and the union signed a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS). It provided a one‑time payment of $23,875.70 as retroactive pay to July 2016 and included a provision that the grievor and the union would not “file any other grievance, complaint, application, claim or other proceeding concerning the Grievor’s Position Description Form as it is presently written and classified with the College”.
The MOS also stated that the college did not admit liability and recorded that the grievor had read and understood the settlement, signed it voluntarily and had been “fully and fairly represented by the Union”.
On Dec. 20, 2020, Romanowska filed a human rights application alleging discrimination because of sex and reprisal, contrary to the Human Rights Code.
Previously, The Nova Scotia Supreme Court overturned harassment findings and related remedial orders against two senior nephrologists, ruling that the Nova Scotia Health Authority (NSHA) failed to provide them with an adequate level of procedural fairness under its Respectful Workplace Policy.
‘Attempting to re‑litigate this matter’
In a written hearing focused on abuse of process and prior proceedings, Vice‑chair Henrie relied on section 23(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, section 42 of the Code and the HRTO’s Rules.
He noted that the Tribunal has previously held that filing an application after signing a full and final settlement can constitute an abuse of process, and quoted prior case law that “there is a strong public interest in ensuring that when parties freely choose to resolve the substance of a human rights dispute, in whatever form it is brought, the matter is at an end.”
On the Romanowska case, Henrie found that the allegations of sex discrimination and reprisal “were raised and discussed during the grievance process, as well as during the investigation by Mrs. Sibbio,” and concluded that “the applicant knew or ought to have know there had been no finding of discrimination or reprisal before signing the MOS of Dec. 1, 2020.”
He observed that, although Romanowska felt the MOS did not address her discrimination and reprisal allegations and took time to consider this, “despite these omissions, she nevertheless signed the MOS” and acknowledged signing voluntarily with union representation.
Comparing the grievance and the HRTO application, Henrie held that “the facts in both proceedings are similar, if not the same,” and stated that the Tribunal has “consistently found that it is an abuse of process when an applicant attempts to ‘split their case’… and then attempt to raise human rights issues in an Application before the Tribunal.”
“In my view,” he wrote, “it would be an abuse of process, as well as be against the principals of judicial economy and the integrity of the justice system to allow the applicant to proceed with this Application… The applicant is attempting to re‑litigate this matter. Accordingly, this Application must be dismissed.”
Having found abuse of process, Henrie did not address whether the case should also be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that another proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.
Previously, a worker’s wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed after their fixed-term contract expired without renewal.
