It skipped the hearing entirely, but the tribunal still had plenty to say
An Ontario environmental remediation company skipped its own human rights hearing entirely, and the tribunal pressed ahead anyway. The result was a mixed verdict: liability for harassment on the job, but dismissal of claims tied to accommodation, reprisal and how the worker was paid.
In a decision dated August 18, 2026, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario adjudicator Lavinia Inbar found Decon Environmental Remediation Inc. liable for harassing a worker on the basis of disability, ordering the company to pay $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, while dismissing the worker's claims of failure to accommodate, reprisal and discriminatory pay practices.
Tribunal proceeds despite employer's absence
The worker, an immigrant from Honduras who is Spanish speaking, began working for the company as a general labourer in 2014 and was later asked to supervise a crew. After a workplace injury in 2017 that required stitches to his knee, he went on Workplace Safety and Insurance Board benefits and returned to a modified role in July 2019. He stopped working on November 5, 2019, saying he could no longer manage the pain.
The company had earlier stopped responding to the tribunal altogether and was deemed to have accepted every allegation in the application. At the hearing, the worker testified that one supervisor asked why he had bothered coming back to work and said, according to his account, “They only let you come back because of WSIB.”
With no evidence offered by the company to explain or dispute the remarks, Inbar found the comments discriminatory and held the company liable for harassment by two supervisors during the months the worker was back on the job.
Workers' compensation ruling limits overlapping claims
The worker also alleged he was denied proper accommodation once he returned, and was assigned tasks beyond his physical restrictions. Inbar found that this part of the complaint had already been resolved through the workers' compensation system, which had issued a detailed appeal decision on the same accommodation question in November 2022.
That workers' compensation decision, entered as evidence in the hearing, concluded that “suitable work was available to the worker beginning on October 7, 2019.” Accommodated construction work remained available to him through mid-November, after which point none was available.
Because the workers' compensation system had already examined the same facts and reached a final conclusion, Inbar dismissed the accommodation portion of the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code. In her merits analysis, she went further, concluding the worker had in fact been accommodated while he remained on the job.
Damages fall far short of what worker sought
The worker also claimed he was paid partly in cash and through a currency exchange and cash advance outlet, and alleged this was tied to his immigration status and ethnicity. Inbar found his evidence on the point inconsistent and could not conclude that his protected characteristics were a factor in how he was paid.
A separate claim that the company withheld pay and blocked his return to work as reprisal for pursuing his workers' compensation claim was also dismissed, with Inbar finding no evidence of an intent to retaliate.
The worker had sought $100,000 in general damages plus lost wages and mandatory human rights training for management. Inbar called that figure excessive, awarding $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect instead, along with interest, and ordered the company to post a copy of the Human Rights Code in its workplace within 30 days.
See Gomez-Rosales v. Decon Environmental Remediation Inc., 2026 HRTO 1264
