Discrimination allegations cite disability, ethnic background, and religion as factors
A registered perfusionist was suspended without pay just one month after returning from an 18-month disability leave, and claimed he was constructively dismissed. In a March 10, 2026, decision, Associate Justice Rappos of the Ontario Superior Court allowed the worker to expand his lawsuit against University Health Network (UHN), ruling that most of his proposed additions were permitted. The case raises pointed questions about what happens when performance concerns collide with a return from disability leave and allegations of discrimination based on disability, ethnicity and religion.
Nusrat Saleem worked as a registered perfusionist at UHN. He was off work from January 7, 2019, due to a disability, during which he received disability benefits. He returned to work on or around July 7, 2020.
During his absence, UHN acquired a new heart and lung machine. Concerns arose about Saleem's work during training on the equipment, and meetings were held with him on August 7 and August 10, 2020. On August 7, about one month after his return, UHN suspended his employment without pay.
His medical leave resumed but became unpaid after the long-term disability benefits provider terminated his benefits for non-compliance with the recommended treatment program. The employer's account also referenced a request for an independent medical assessment and a rehab program recommended by the provider, both of which Saleem allegedly refused to participate in.
Disability, ethnicity, and religion in the mix
Saleem alleged that "his disability or perceived disability, his ethnic background, and religion played a role in his treatment by UHN," which he said breached the Human Rights Code. He sought $130,000 in wrongful dismissal damages, representing 12 months' notice, and $50,000 under section 46.1 of the Code.
His proposed amendments significantly expanded the case, adding requests for $250,000 in moral and/or aggravated damages, $250,000 in punitive damages, and an order for reinstatement to his prior position or, alternatively, damages under the Human Rights Code, along with 48 new paragraphs detailing his employment, leave, return, relationship with UHN afterward, and matters related to his long-term disability benefits.
UHN denied Saleem was constructively dismissed or suspended without pay. Its position was that he "attempted to return to work after his leave but was unsuccessful due to medical reasons" and that his leave resumed, becoming unpaid only because the provider cut off benefits for non-compliance.
Certain amendments to claim allowed; others rejected
The court permitted the claims for moral and/or aggravated damages and punitive damages, finding they were not new causes of action. It also found most other amendments permissible, holding that "it would be inequitable to prevent Mr. Saleem from fleshing out his factual allegations to his claim and respond to the Defendant's version of the events."
However, amendments alleging Saleem was forced to submit a resignation letter in February 2022 to access his pension were refused. The court found this "seems to suggest a different theory of liability" and was "a fundamentally different claim in constructive dismissal that was originally pled," falling outside the two-year limitation period. Amendments about his mitigation efforts and UHN's alleged failure to help him find new work were also rejected. A separate amendment concerning an August 16, 2022 neurology assessment was permitted, as it responded to UHN's statement of defence and fell within the limitation period.
The case proceeds under the ordinary procedure. The court noted that UHN "clearly understood what was at issue in the claim commenced by Mr. Saleem and responded accordingly with its factual responses in its statement of defence."
