He called it a witch hunt; the tribunal saw it very differently
An Ontario correctional officer's discrimination complaint has been dismissed, with a human rights tribunal finding the ministry's paid suspension and investigation followed policy, not prejudice.
In a decision dated Aug. 19, 2026, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario member Lavinia Inbar dismissed a complaint brought by a correctional officer at the Toronto South Detention Centre against Ontario's Ministry of the Solicitor General. The officer, who identifies as Black and Indigenous, alleged a 2020 suspension and workplace investigation were rooted in race and ancestry; Inbar found no such link.
Allegations led to paid suspension
The applicant, a correctional officer, had been working alongside two colleagues for about a week when, on June 7, 2020, those colleagues raised allegations of misconduct with a staff sergeant who was acting as deputy superintendent of operations that day. He was then directed to prepare an occurrence report and escorted from the premises.
According to the superintendent's evidence, the occurrence reports described allegations that the applicant had made "comments of a sexual, racial, and violent nature" and had concerning interactions with inmates and colleagues. In total, four correctional officers and one inmate came forward with complaints about the applicant's conduct that day.
A non-disciplinary suspension with pay followed, pending investigation and in line with the ministry's staff conduct policy; the applicant was given a suspension letter along with information about an employee assistance program. He later testified that he felt the process was a "witch hunt" and said it had damaged his reputation.
Conflicting accounts tested claims of racial motive
Race and Indigeneity were behind the complaints, the applicant argued, pointing to his support for Black Lives Matter protests and alleging that one colleague had a history of racist conduct and a personal relationship with the acting deputy superintendent who received the complaints. He also claimed the two colleagues pressured others to come forward.
Nothing in that colleague's employment record supported the claim of past racist conduct, the superintendent testified, and the acting deputy superintendent denied under cross-examination having any relationship with the colleague outside work. Inbar preferred that evidence, noting the superintendent's oversight of personnel records made her well placed to speak to it.
Inbar also found that the applicant had worked with the two colleagues for only about a week before the complaints arose, and that three other people, including two other correctional officers and an inmate, separately raised similar concerns about the applicant's conduct. Those parallel complaints, Inbar found, undercut the theory that the allegations were timed to the applicant's activism.
Investigation process defeated discrimination claim
An investigation involving interviews with 16 people, including the applicant and the complainant inmate, concluded that the allegation from one colleague could not be substantiated and that two other complainants had overstated their accounts. Cleared of wrongdoing, the applicant was invited to return to work; he has remained off work on disability benefits since.
Inbar found that escorting the applicant off site, placing him on a paid suspension and conducting a prompt investigation all matched ministry policy on staff conduct, incident reporting and workplace violence prevention, and were reasonable responses to allegations of sexual, racial and violent remarks. Management's priority at the time, according to the superintendent's evidence, was addressing the seriousness of the concerns raised by staff and ensuring their wellbeing, consistent with proper investigative procedure.
Because the applicant did not prove that his ancestry, colour, creed, ethnic origin or race were a factor in his treatment, Inbar dismissed the application in full.
