WSIB Decision Didn’t Stop Human Rights Case
On October 17, 2025, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) refused to dismiss a disability discrimination and reprisal application in Frankcom v. DECAST Ltd., 2025 HRTO 2602.
The employer, DECAST Ltd., argued that the employee’s termination had already been properly dealt with by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB), and therefore, the human rights claim should not proceed.
The HRTO disagreed, finding that the WSIB proceedings did not address the full scope of the employee’s allegations, specifically, claims of workplace harassment and reprisal for requesting accommodations.
The case underscores how employers cannot rely solely on WSIB findings to protect against human rights complaints. Even when the WSIB clears an employer of wrongdoing, the HRTO may still examine whether workplace conduct amounted to discrimination or reprisal under the Human Rights Code.
This article breaks down what happened, what the HRTO decided, and why it matters for employers in Ontario.
The Case at a Glance
The applicant, Ryan Frankcom, had worked for DECAST Ltd., of Utopia, Ontario, since 2012 and suffered three separate workplace injuries between 2018 and 2019. After the third injury, he alleged that DECAST failed to accommodate his disability and subjected him to workplace harassment before terminating his employment in August 2019.
Following the termination, the Ministry of Labour ordered an internal harassment investigation, which concluded that Mr. Frankcom had made coworkers feel unsafe. The company relied on those findings to justify dismissal.
Mr. Frankcom brought two WSIB claims related to his injuries, arguing his termination breached DECAST’s duty to re-employ him under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. The WSIB rejected those claims, finding that the termination was unrelated to his workplace injury or disability.
When Mr. Frankcom later filed a human rights application, DECAST asked the HRTO to dismiss it, arguing that the WSIB had already decided the same issues.
What the HRTO Decided and Why It Matters
The HRTO refused to dismiss the application, ruling that the WSIB and HRTO proceedings dealt with different legal issues.
Key Findings:
1. The WSIB did not address harassment or reprisal allegations
- While the WSIB determined that the dismissal was unrelated to the workplace injury, it did not consider whether the employer’s conduct amounted to discrimination, harassment, or reprisal for asserting accommodation rights.
2. Human rights and WSIB processes serve distinct purposes
- Under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, the HRTO may dismiss a case if another proceeding has “appropriately dealt with the substance” of the application. Here, the Tribunal found that WSIB’s decisions did not meet this threshold. WSIB determinations focus on entitlement to benefits under workplace safety legislation, not on violations of the Human Rights Code.
3. No abuse of process in allowing the claim to proceed
- Because the WSIB did not decide the same core issues, the HRTO found no duplication or unfairness in permitting the human rights application to continue.
4. Timeliness upheld
- Even though some incidents dated back to 2018, the HRTO found they formed part of a continuing series of related accommodation and harassment issues, making the application timely under the one-year filing rule. The HRTO accepted that the employer’s ongoing handling of accommodation requests formed a continuous pattern of alleged discrimination rather than isolated events.
As Christopher Achkar, employment lawyer and founder of Achkar Law, explains:
“This decision reinforces that WSIB findings don’t end an employer’s legal exposure. Employers who take a proactive, well-documented approach to accommodation and communication are best positioned to defend against overlapping claims.”
Key Legal Takeaways for Ontario Employers
- WSIB decisions don’t always shield employers from HRTO claims
A finding that a termination was “unrelated to a workplace injury” under the WSIA does not prevent an employee from alleging discrimination, harassment, or reprisal under the Human Rights Code. - Document accommodation efforts carefully
Injury-related absences and modified duties should be supported by clear, well-documented communication and accommodation plans. This documentation is critical if an employee later alleges reprisal or discrimination. - Separate workplace investigations from accommodation issues
When safety or harassment complaints overlap with disability accommodation concerns, treat each issue distinctly and follow proper procedural fairness standards. - Understand overlapping legal frameworks
Ontario employers must recognize the differences between WSIB, ESA, and Human Rights Code obligations. Fulfilling one set of duties does not guarantee compliance with the others. - Coordinate HR, WSIB, and Legal Strategies
Employers should ensure internal communication between HR, health and safety, and legal departments to prevent conflicting positions or procedural missteps that can trigger multiple claims.
Why Employers Should Take Preventive Steps
This case illustrates how a single workplace incident can lead to multiple proceedings, each with different legal standards and risks.
Employers can minimize exposure by maintaining transparent and well-documented accommodation processes, conducting unbiased, properly scoped workplace investigations, training managers on the limits of WSIB versus human rights compliance, and seeking early legal advice when accommodation, injury, or harassment issues arise.
How Achkar Law Helps Ontario Employers
At Achkar Law, we help employers across Ontario navigate the intersection of workplace safety, accommodation, and human rights obligations.
Our team assists with drafting and implementing accommodation and return-to-work policies, conducting or reviewing workplace investigations, responding to HRTO applications and WSIB disputes, and training HR and management on compliance best practices.
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 Achkar Law Professional Corporation and may not be photocopied or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the express permission of Achkar Law Professional Corporation. ©