Tribunal Dismisses Key Claims, But Leaves Door Open for Reprisal Proceedings
THUNDER BAY — NEWS – Georjann Morriseau the former Chair of the Thunder Bay Police Services Board has had her human rights claims of racial discrimination dismissed by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), though allegations of reprisal remain active and under consideration.
The case, Morriseau v. Thunder Bay Police Service Board, has drawn attention across Northwestern Ontario, particularly among Indigenous communities and police oversight advocates. The HRTO ruled on October 14, 2025, that it does not have jurisdiction to hear claims of racial discrimination under Ontario’s Human Rights Code due to the nature of the applicant’s relationship with the Board.
Background: Indigenous Chair Takes on Police Governance System
Morriseau, who served as Chair of the Thunder Bay Police Service Board from December 2019 to December 2020, is a prominent Indigenous woman, and the former Chief of Fort William First Nation, whose term came during a time of intense scrutiny and upheaval in the city’s policing and oversight bodies.
Between October 2021 and August 2022, she filed five separate applications to the HRTO, claiming that the Board — including now former Board Secretary John Hannam — discriminated against her on the basis of her race and ethnic origin under Section 5(1) of the Human Rights Code.
Morriseau also alleges retaliation under Section 8 of the Code for participating in legal proceedings.
Key Decision: No “Employment” Relationship, Says Tribunal
The HRTO dismissed three of the five applications after determining that no employment relationship existed between the applicant and the Board — a requirement for Section 5(1) of the Code to apply. Citing precedent from the Supreme Court of Canada in McCormick v. Fasken Martineau, the Tribunal applied the “control and dependency” test and found that the applicant was not under the control of the Board or Mr. Hannam.
“The Board did not hire her, did not control her rate of pay, could not dictate her responsibilities, and could not fire her,” wrote adjudicator Will McNair in the decision.
The Tribunal emphasized that the applicant’s duties and compensation were defined by provincial legislation, specifically the now-repealed Police Services Act. This effectively removed the applicant from the scope of workplace discrimination protections offered under the Code.
Reprisal Allegations Continue
Despite the dismissal of the discrimination claims, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the allegations of reprisal. The Board had argued that if no employment relationship existed, no reprisals could be claimed. However, the Tribunal disagreed, affirming that participants in legal proceedings under the Code are still protected from retaliatory actions.
“The fact that the Tribunal thereafter determined it does not have jurisdiction over the applicant’s claims of discrimination does not mean she was not subject to reprisal for instituting the proceedings,” wrote McNair.
The case will proceed to a hearing on the merits of the reprisal allegations.
Implications for Thunder Bay and Beyond
This case highlights continued tensions in Thunder Bay’s policing institutions and the challenges Indigenous leaders face within governance systems. The applicant’s experiences, while not deemed to fall within the HRTO’s jurisdiction for discrimination, underscore issues of power dynamics, governance, and systemic barriers.
The decision is especially relevant to Thunder Bay’s Indigenous community, where mistrust of police and oversight bodies remains high due to longstanding concerns about racism and public accountability.
It also raises questions about how oversight roles are structured and whether Indigenous voices in leadership are truly empowered or sidelined by bureaucratic forces.
As the reprisal claim moves forward, it will be watched closely by community leaders, human rights advocates, and legal observers seeking clarity on the protections afforded to those who challenge institutions through legal means.
What Comes Next?
The Tribunal has not set a date for the next stage of the proceedings related to the reprisal allegations. Should a hearing be scheduled, it could offer the applicant a chance to further present evidence of alleged retaliation for initiating the HRTO process.
The case continues to be a touchstone for the ongoing reckoning around equity, oversight, and Indigenous representation in Northern Ontario’s public institutions.
