A Canada Post employee with disabilities was at the centre of a case challenging the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s (CHRC) decision to dismiss her harassment complaint. While this case was decided in 2023, it remains a strong reminder of the importance of procedural fairness and the obligation of employers and unions to respect employees’ human rights throughout grievance and complaint processes.
Background
Laurie White (LW), an employee of Canada Post Corporation, lives with multi-chemical sensitivity syndrome and requires a scent-free work environment. White alleged that CPC and her union failed to address her discrimination concerns properly, particularly those related to her disability. In her complaint to the CHRC, White argued that neither the union nor CPC responded to her workplace discrimination claims fairly, and she was unfairly excluded from participating in the grievance process.
HR Proactive’s Investigation Report
A critical issue in this case was the investigation report created by HR Proactive as a result of an independent third-party investigation that determined Canada Post had violated the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) in its treatment of White. The fact that this report was not disclosed during the grievance process became a central concern during the court’s review of the CHRC’s decision to dismiss White’s complaint.
The CHRC’s Initial Decision
At the outset, the CHRC dismissed White’s complaint, reasoning that the matters she raised had already been addressed and resolved through the grievance process, as reflected in memoranda of agreement. The Commission believed that the grievance process had dealt with the issues and, for that reason, opted not to proceed further with White’s human rights complaint.
However, White argued that her complaint involved more than the outcome of the grievance process. She maintained that procedural fairness had been compromised, particularly as the union refused to advance her grievances to arbitration and as Canada Post failed to disclose the HR Proactive Report promptly. According to White, these failures meant that her concerns were not dealt with fairly, transparently, or thoroughly during the grievance process.
The Court’s Ruling
The Federal Court ultimately found that the CHRC’s decision to dismiss White’s complaint was unreasonable and ordered that it be set aside. The court directed the CHRC to reconsider the matter, this time assigning it to a different decision-maker. Additionally, the court awarded White $100 in costs, payable by Canada Post.
The decision emphasized that before declining to proceed with a human rights complaint, the CHRC must carefully consider whether alternative dispute resolution processes, such as grievance proceedings, have treated the matter fairly and adequately. It reinforced the importance of procedural fairness, transparency, and the right of employees to have their voices heard throughout grievance and complaint resolution processes.
Key Takeaways:
1. Procedural fairness is essential. Employees are entitled to fair, transparent, and inclusive processes when their workplace complaints or grievances are being addressed. Failing to respect procedural fairness can result in human rights violations and legal challenges.
2. Employers and unions must be transparent. Withholding important information, such as investigation reports or findings, can lead to an unfair process. In this case, the failure to disclose the investigation report undermined the integrity of the grievance process and contributed to the Federal Court’s decision.
3. Judicial review is available to employees. When an employee believes their complaint has not been addressed fairly, they may seek judicial review of administrative decisions, as White did in this case, to have their concerns properly reconsidered.
4. Human rights complaints cannot be dismissed lightly. The CHRC is obligated to carefully assess whether complaints have been fairly addressed before deciding not to proceed. The court in this case made it clear that White’s complaint deserved further review and could not be dismissed based on the grievance process alone.
Conclusion
The White v. Canada (Human Rights Commission) decision continues to stand as an important reminder to employers and unions that human rights complaints must be handled carefully and fairly, with attention to procedural fairness and transparency at every stage. Employers must also ensure that alternative dispute resolution processes, such as grievance proceedings, do not undermine an employee’s rights or prevent them from fully participating in the process.
This decision also reinforces that human rights complaints warrant thorough, impartial consideration — and that dismissing them based on prior grievance outcomes, without a careful examination of fairness and transparency, carries legal risks. The ruling has lasting value as a guide for how workplace human rights complaints should be managed, particularly when procedural fairness issues are raised.
If your organization needs support with workplace investigations — whether it’s conducting impartial third-party investigations or reviewing your current procedures for fairness and legal compliance — we can help. Reach out to learn how our investigation services can help protect your organization and strengthen your workplace practices.
