Adjudicator saw a narrative shift the moment worker tried to change his own words
A Ford Motor Company of Canada assembly worker who asked the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to substitute the word "disabilities" for every mention of "health and safety concern" in his witness statement has lost his discrimination and reprisal case after being fired over an alleged assault on a manager.
In a decision dated April 23, 2026, adjudicator Kelly Barker dismissed Sean Rudge's application against Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, finding his major depressive disorder and anxiety features were not a factor in his March 2017 termination. Rudge had worked on the company's vehicle assembly line from around October 1, 1998, until his termination with cause on March 7, 2017.
The dispute that ended an 18-year career
The events began over glass production. During the overnight shift of August 17 to August 18, 2016, Rudge was working on the assembly line and was approached about not building up enough glass. A dispute arose, which resulted in the applicant being ordered to leave the assembly line floor area and attend the upstairs labour relations area.
Rudge then called a "Stage 3 work refusal" and following this, security was called. As part of the dispute, the Team Manager, Jake Hanson, attended the scene. A disputed incident occurred while the applicant was on route to labour relations.
Hanson alleged he was struck. Rudge denied it. An email dated August 17, 2016, from Zak El-Baghdadi to an HR staff member reported that Mr. El-Baghdadi had seen the applicant strike Mr. Hanson's elbow as he walked by. Rudge went on medical leave right after the incident, returned on March 6, 2017, was interviewed on his return about the incident and was subsequently terminated on March 7, 2017.
A missed witness and a contested investigation
Former security guard Joe Perrino, who had also been at the scene, testified at the hearing that he had actually seen Mr. Hanson strike the applicant during their interaction as opposed to the applicant striking Mr. Hanson. Ford did not interview Perrino during its investigation.
Former HR Manager Gillian Briscoe testified that over seven months following the August 17, 2016 workplace incident, when the grievance was being discussed between Ford and the Union, the Union presented a document dated August 29, 2016, from Mr. Perrino, who was no longer employed by Ford, indicating that he had witnessed Mr. Hanson push Mr. Rudge on the date of the incident. Briscoe further testified that the company's review of the records concluded Perrino's report "was falsified in an attempt to assist Mr. Rudge through his grievance." Hanson, meanwhile, wrote in an email in the early hours of August 18, 2016: "As he walked past me he stuck his elbow out striking me in the stomach..."
Rudge also pointed to a Material Safety Data Sheet showing the Betaseal glass primer he worked with contained toluene, arguing chemical exposure caused his depression. No medical expert testified, and Barker found she could not make "a complicated medical and scientific finding about toluene causing depression in the absence of testimony from a doctor with specialized knowledge about chemical exposure."
Where the case unravelled
Barker found that the medical evidence did not establish that the applicant had a disability during the August 2016 incident, but she did find on a balance of probabilities that the applicant had a disability on his return to work on March 6, 2017. Either way, she found his disability was not a factor in the termination.
Under oath, Rudge asked that every reference to "health and safety concern" in his witness statement be substituted with "disabilities." Barker found the request "reduced the applicant's credibility" and "appeared to me an attempt to change his own narrative to now fit the required legal test."
On the reprisal claim, Barker found that Rudge's frequent complaints about toluene exposure and other workplace safety issues did not amount to claiming or enforcing a right under the Code, and that he appeared to be alleging reprisal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, "something that is not under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal." She added: "I find that the applicant did express many concerns of chemical exposure and other workplace safety issues, but this is not the same as claiming or enforcing a right under the Code." The application was dismissed.
See Rudge v. Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, 2026 HRTO 627
