September 30th, 2026

Clarification on who is covered under human rights laws

In determining if someone is entitled to statutory entitlements and/or protections under employment standards legislation, the first question is often – is this individual an employee or not? If this individual is not an employee, and assuming that they are properly classified, then it may be possible that they aren't covered by employment standards legislation.

The Human Rights Code operates differently though. It generally offers more expansive coverage to include independent contractors, gig workers, volunteers, and more.

The Human Rights Tribunal clarified this scope in a recent decision, Sangha v. Lyft Canada Inc., 2026 HRTO 1139.

As usual, let's break it down.

Facts:

  • The applicant was an independent contractor for Lyft (not an employee).
  • A customer made a complaint regarding the applicant's three-foot kirpan outside of his clothing (as an expression of his religious belief). Lyft deactivated his driver's account and did not reinstate him.
  • The applicant then filed an application alleging discrimination in the area of employment on the basis of creed. Creed is a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.
  • The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the Application due to lack of jurisdiction in its original (2025) decision. In relation to the lack of jurisdiction, the Tribunal determined that the respondent (Lyft) was not the "employer" nor did they provide goods, services, and facilities to the applicant.
  • Later, the Tribunal denied the applicant's Request for Reconsideration indicating that the applicant had not established a basis for reconsideration.
  • The applicant then filed for judicial review with the Divisional Court.
  • Prior to the judicial review proceeding, the Tribunal initiated its own reconsideration process.

Analysis:

  • In considering whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the application, the most important factor to consider was how "with respect to employment" should be interpreted.
  • In its reconsideration of the matter, the Tribunal relied on the following:
  • oIn the decision of McCormick v. Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, 2014 SCC 39, the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed an expansive interpretation of employment in the context of human rights. Specifically, the Supreme Court noted that while independent contractors may not be covered under other employment legislation as they are not employees, they may be considered "employees" for the purposes of human rights legislation, depending on the "control and dependency" test.
  • oIn addition to this Supreme Court decision, a few other HRTO decisions were also considered, including Marchese v. Al-Taqwa Academy Foundation, 2025 HRTO 2077, Chappell v. Securitas Canada Limited, 2012 HRTO 874, and Szabo v. Poley, 2007 HRTO 37. In all of these decisions, the phrase "with respect to employment" was interpreted broadly.
    • Note: for unknown reasons these cases were not cited or referred to in the Tribunal's original Decision nor in the Reconsideration Decision.
  • The Tribunal noted the application could also be found to occur within the other Human Rights Code protected social areas of services, goods and facilities or contracts.
  • The Tribunal noted that the allegations, as plead, plainly occurred within at least one the Human Rights Code's protected social areas.

Decision:

  • Relying on the above, the Tribunal rescinded the dismissed Application and Reconsideration Decision.
  • A mediation was scheduled for the matter to proceed.

Takeaway:

This brief but important decision reminds us that while employment standards legislation usually only covers traditional employee-employment relationships, the Human Rights Code provides wider coverage. This includes, without limitation, volunteers, independent contractors, and even individuals who are simply utilizing the goods, services, and/or facilities of the organization. This can include customers or clients!

Individuals who have experienced discrimination or have had an accommodation request be rejected should speak with an employment lawyer. We handle human rights claims and can assist.

Organizations and employers should ensure their practices are compliant with the Human Rights Code. While not explicitly required, organizations are encouraged to adopt written anti-discrimination or accommodation policies. These policies usually include, without limitation, a statement prohibiting discrimination, mechanisms for applying for accommodations (based on human rights protected grounds), and mechanisms for complaints to be filed and investigated. Contact us today to help you develop a policy for your organization!