Disagreement with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s Decision Insufficient to Establish Unreasonableness

Race Colour and/or Disability was not a Factor in TD Bank’s Demotion of a Branch Manager.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness; Human rights – Discrimination; Abuse of process.

Miller v. Toronto Dominion Bank, [2026] F.C.J. No. 154, Federal Court, February 3, 2026, M.D. Manson J.

The Applicant, a self identified Black man of African Caribbean descent, was employed as a Manager of Customer Service and Sales at a TD Bank branch. When the Bank introduced a national restructuring initiative aimed at cost savings, the Applicant’s position was eliminated, and he was demoted to a Financial Advisor role. The roles of two other Managers of Customer Services and Sales in the Applicant’s division were also eliminated, but these employees, who were white men, were promoted into new positions.

The Applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging that TD Bank discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, and/or disability. His complaint was dismissed at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence that the Applicant’s race, colour and/or disability was a direct or indirect factor in his demotion. The Applicant applied for judicial review at the Federal Court.

The Federal Court accepted the Applicant’s submission that a policy that is neutral on its face may be discriminatory if it disproportionately and adversely affects a protected group, and that discrimination may be established through circumstantial evidence and need not be intentional. However, the Court did not accept that the Tribunal ignored the Applicant’s circumstantial evidence of discrimination. The Tribunal acknowledged the Applicant’s frustration with respect to his demotion and “the optics created by the two promotions of other employees in the same district” (para. 28). However, the Applicant’s disagreement with the Tribunal’s refusal to draw the inferences that this amounted to discrimination did not establish unreasonableness.

The Court also rejected the Applicant’s argument that the Tribunal’s reasoning effectively required statistical proof to establish adverse effect discrimination. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant’s general and impressionistic evidence about systemic patterns at TD Bank was not backed up by specifics. The Court held that the Tribunal, in making this finding, did not impose an improper evidentiary threshold.

Further, the Applicant’s request that the Court consider the broader public considerations, including “international instruments and public acknowledgment of anti-Black racism by institutions”, was not a substitute for the evidentiary requirement to establish that a prohibited ground was a factor in his demotion.

Significantly, in dismissing his application for judicial review, the Court ordered costs against the Applicant, finding that his advancement of multiple proceedings in the Federal Court, the Ontario Court of Justice, and the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, on the same or similar allegations, amounted to an abuse of process.

This case was digested by Rachel Wood.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact her directly at [email protected].