When does a workplace label become discrimination? Ontario just drew the line
A manager called a Chinese employee "Shanghai Woman" in front of her colleagues. The employee had been living with chronic depression for more than a year. She was terminated weeks later. On February 10, 2026, Adjudicator Rosamaria Longo of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed a discrimination application filed by Yiming Liu, a Guest Service Agent, against Holiday Inn Toronto Downtown Centre and three individual respondents, after Arbitrator Gail Misra found no substance to Liu's human rights allegations.
Liu, originally from Shanghai, China, alleged that her manager Gina He referred to her as a "Shanghai Woman" during a front desk staff meeting on September 30, 2017. Liu argued the term was pejorative and constituted discrimination based on her place of origin under the Code.
Arbitrator Gail Misra, who presided over the eight-day termination grievance hearing, found no evidence to support that. As recorded in the HRTO decision, Misra found the term was akin to calling someone a "Torontonian."
Misra concluded there was no substance to this human rights allegation. Liu was reinstated after Misra separately found that the hotel had not established just cause for her termination.
The cost of staying silent about depression
Liu stated she had suffered from chronic depression since July 2016 due to work-related stress. She alleged that once she developed depression, she was unjustly disciplined in an attempt to get her to quit her job, before her termination on November 15, 2017.
As recorded in the HRTO decision, Arbitrator Misra found that Liu did not establish any connection between her work performance and her medical condition, such that the respondent would have no reason to think that Liu's performance issues were related to any medical condition.
Misra further found that Liu did not advise the respondent hotel that she was suffering from depression in 2017, or that she was disabled in any way at all.
Performance management is not harassment
Liu further alleged that the discipline she received from management constituted bullying and harassment, arguing she had been targeted, bullied and unfairly disciplined.
Arbitrator Misra rejected the characterisation outright. As recorded in the HRTO decision, Misra held that it is not harassment or bullying for managers to bring to the applicant's attention when she had not been doing her job properly.
While Liu was reinstated on the basis that the hotel failed to establish just cause for termination, her human rights allegations were dismissed in full. Misra found the applicant had not disclosed her depression to her employer and had not established any connection between her medical condition and her work performance. Misra also found no substance to what Liu characterised as bullying or harassment.
See Liu v. Holiday Inn Toronto Downtown Center, 2026 HRTO 258
