What this employer kept on file mattered more than what the sergeant alleged
A Toronto correctional sergeant has lost his discrimination and reprisal complaint at Ontario's Human Rights Tribunal, which found that management had investigated and disciplined the workplace incidents he raised, with no link to his race or age.
In a decision dated June 4, 2026, adjudicator Lavinia Inbar dismissed the application brought by Anil Purohit, a sergeant at the Toronto South Detention Centre, against the Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General. Purohit, who represented himself, alleged discrimination on the grounds of age, ancestry, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin and race, along with reprisal and a poisoned work environment.
Purohit, who identifies as an East Indian man and was born in 1966, pointed to six areas of his working life, from how management handled clashes with colleagues to post assignments and promotions. The hearing on the merits ran by video conference in March 2026, with the detention centre's superintendent testifying for the employer.
The first dispute involved a correctional officer who reported to Purohit and, according to another sergeant, called him "a goof." Management began looking into it the same day, gathered occurrence reports and access-card records, and the officer was eventually disciplined with a letter and a retraction of 12 hours of pay. Inbar found there was no evidence the word was a racist or ageist slur, so the employer's duty to investigate discrimination was never triggered.
The incidents and the employer's response
A second sergeant swore at Purohit and a colleague during a busy shift, in language Inbar described as crude but not, on its face, racist or ageist. The employer collected reports, a deputy superintendent met with the sergeant, and a non-disciplinary letter of counsel followed, telling the sergeant the conduct fell below the standard expected of a manager and could not be tolerated.
In a September 2020 incident, Purohit said a correctional officer he supervised slammed a corner of his desk and swore at him. The officer was relieved of his shift that day, a workplace violence assessment followed, and after consulting human resources the employer imposed a 15-day unpaid suspension. Purohit later testified the officer had thrown a 300-pound table at him, which Inbar called "evidence that I have difficulty believing and simply disregard."
A separate strand concerned Purohit's request to bring a support person to a meeting about a pandemic-era accommodation. The employer's position was that managers, unlike unionized staff entitled to union representation, have no automatic right to a support person outside disciplinary meetings. Under cross-examination Purohit said he wanted a support person to "balance the power," and agreed his request was not tied to his health condition.
Subjective feelings not evidence of discrimination
On posts and promotions, the employer produced a June 2020 expression-of-interest chart listing 20 specialty positions, including roles Purohit said he had been shut out of. The records showed he had ranked only two preferences and had not applied for the posts he complained about. Inbar also noted he had been promoted to staff sergeant in 2021.
Purohit argued the cumulative effect amounted to a poisoned work environment, but Inbar found that claim rested on his subjective feelings rather than the objective evidence the test requires. For each allegation, she wrote, he had not shown that discrimination or harassment on a protected ground had become a part of his workplace.
In dismissing the application, Inbar concluded there was "neither direct nor circumstantial evidence before me sufficient for me to infer that the applicant's Code-protected characteristics were even one factor or operative element" in any disadvantage he experienced.
See Purohit v. Ontario (Solicitor General), 2026 HRTO 859 (CanLII)
