Case In Point
Dismissal of Healthcare Worker for Failure to Disclose COVID-19 Exposure to Spouse/Co-Worker Not Discriminatory
Date: March 10, 2025
The Ontario Divisional Court recently dismissed an application for judicial review of a reconsideration decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Tribunal) in which the Tribunal dismissed an application from a personal support worker who alleged his termination during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic constituted discrimination based on perceived disability. The decision in Ovwodorume v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario provides important clarification on the distinction between legitimate workplace policy enforcement and discriminatory conduct.
Background
Prince Ovwodorume served as an overnight personal support worker at Vita Community Living Services (Vita), an organization providing care for adults with developmental disabilities, dual diagnoses and chronic mental illness. In June 2020, Vita’s management learned of his exposure to COVID-19 through another employee. Management promptly removed Ovwodorume from his shift and directed him to isolate and undergo testing.
The case centered on a critical workplace safety violation: Ovwodorume’s spouse, who also worked at Vita, continued reporting to work. According to Vita, Ovwodorume failed to inform his spouse about his COVID-19 exposure, potentially endangering Vita’s vulnerable clients and staff. This violation led to his termination on June 30, 2020, with Vita explicitly citing serious breaches of workplace policies and procedures.
Ovwodorume argued his termination of employment was discriminatory on two grounds. First, he contended that Vita’s true motivation was their perception that he had COVID-19 and that this amounted to discrimination based on perceived disability. Second, he claimed discrimination by association, pointing to complaints from his spouse’s colleague about her continued presence at work despite living with someone exposed to the virus.
The Tribunal’s Decision
In dismissing the application at a summary hearing, the Tribunal concluded that Ovwodorume’s termination was unrelated to grounds protected under the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code). The Tribunal held that the application had no reasonable prospect of success because the termination stemmed from Ovwodorume’s policy violations rather than perceived disability discrimination.
Ovwodorume challenged both the substance of the Tribunal’s decision and its procedural fairness, particularly focusing on the Tribunal’s decision not to require copies of Vita’s COVID-19 policies. The Tribunal had rejected Ovwodorume’s request for reconsideration on the basis that the policies were unlikely to be determinative to the discrimination analysis and in light of the fact that the policies could have been obtained earlier.
The Divisional Court’s Analysis
The Divisional Court reviewed the substance of the Tribunal’s decision on the reasonableness standard.
The Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision that the termination was not discriminatory as reasonable. The Court focused on the fact that there was sufficient evidence to ground the Tribunal’s finding that Vita terminated Ovwodorume because of his failure to follow employer policies, as opposed to terminating him because of Code-related grounds. The Court found the Tribunal’s reliance on Ovwodorume’s termination letter to be appropriate and compelling. The letter explicitly tied Ovwodorume’s termination to his failure to follow Vita’s policies and procedures and clearly set out the health-related risks associated with Ovwodorume’s failures.
Turning to procedural fairness, the Court was clear that proceeding summarily does not amount to an automatic breach of procedural fairness. To the contrary, the Court reinforced the importance of the Tribunal’s summary hearing process as a tool for the Tribunal to allocate scarce resources in a manner that is fair, effective and efficient. In the context of a summary hearing, the Court held that the Tribunal’s reliance on the termination letter and the underlying factual context was appropriate. In so doing, the Court reinforced the principle that litigants before the Tribunal do not have an absolute right to a full merits hearing in every case.
Key Takeaways
This case provides important commentary on the Tribunal’s summary hearing process. The case affirms that litigants do not have an absolute right to a full merits hearing for every human rights application, thereby supporting the Tribunal’s authority to efficiently screen out applications lacking a reasonable prospect of success.
For employers and HR professionals, the case demonstrates the importance of clearly documenting the specific policy breaches that lead to termination and of clearly articulating the reasons for termination in any termination letter. Appropriate documentation at the time of termination may assist with achieving summary dismissal of human rights applications and can help to avoid costly and protracted litigation.
For assistance with any termination matters or a review of workplace policies, please contact your regular Hicks Morley lawyer.
The article in this client update provides general information and should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. This publication is copyrighted by Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP and may not be photocopied or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the express permission of Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP. ©
