Vice-Chair finds arbitrator already grappled with Code arguments, blocking second kick at the can
Ontario's Human Rights Tribunal refused to revive a Sheridan College worker's reprisal claim already tackled in arbitration.
Vice-Chair Emily Morton issued the decision on May 8, 2026, dismissing a reconsideration request from former employee Maximiliaan van Woundenberg. He argued his union's 18-day grievance arbitration did not deal with the human rights issues raised in his application. Morton found otherwise, ruling the arbitrator had been alive to those arguments and that reopening the case would require the Tribunal to hear the same evidence again.
How a termination became a two-track reprisal fight
Van Woundenberg was terminated from Sheridan College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning on Feb. 28, 2017. He filed a grievance on March 14, 2017, and on July 13, 2017, filed a Tribunal application alleging reprisal against the college and individual respondents Mary Preece and Stephanie Samboo. He claimed the college fired him because he had previously filed a human rights application in 2015.
His union, OPSEU Local 244, took the grievance to arbitration. The arbitrator's May 2, 2022, decision followed the 18-day hearing and dismissed the grievance. The Tribunal's original decision, 2026 HRTO 218, issued Feb. 4, 2026, dismissed van Woundenberg's application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding the arbitration had appropriately dealt with his reprisal claim.
Van Woundenberg filed a reconsideration request on March 2, 2026, relying on Rule 26.5(c). According to the Tribunal's summary of his submissions, he argued the arbitration only dealt with the allegation that his termination was without just cause and did not engage the human rights issues. He also argued the decision raised a matter of public importance.
What the arbitration record showed about Code claims
Vice-Chair Morton found the original decision did not conflict with established case law. She pointed to the arbitrator's words showing the union had argued the case was about "an Employer, and an Associate Dean, that could not tolerate [the Applicant's] attempts to vindicate and enforce his rights under the Collective Agreement and [the Code]."
The arbitrator found that van Woundenberg "has engaged in misconduct deserving of discipline" and that "since 2016, he raised spurious allegations of harassment." The arbitrator concluded there were "insufficient grounds upon which to exercise my discretion to vary the penalty of termination" and dismissed the grievance.
Morton concluded the arbitrator was "alive to the issue of termination as reprisal which was raised by the applicant's union on his behalf before the arbitrator." She rejected the public importance argument, writing it was "a misstatement of the reasoning in the Decision" and "contradicted by the arbitrator's reasons which grapple with the arguments relating to reprisal put forward by the applicant's union."
How the Tribunal applied the four-part test
The Tribunal applied the four-part analysis consistently used to assess whether another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of an application, citing Penner v. Niagara (Regional Police Services Board), 2013 SCC 19, Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services) v. De Lottinville, 2015 ONSC 3085, and Belsky v. Ontario (Government and Consumer Services), 2016 HRTO 272. The original decision found concurrent jurisdiction, a fair opportunity to be heard over 18 hearing days, substantially the same legal issues, and no unfairness in applying the arbitration result.
Morton reiterated that "the application of the s. 45.1 analysis is not to be too technical or rigid" and that human rights issues raised in another proceeding "need not be explicitly decided in order to find that a matter was appropriately dealt with."
The reconsideration request was dismissed, and the original decision stands.
See Van Woundenberg v. Sheridan College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, 2026 HRTO 719.
