THUNDER BAY – News – An interim decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) in the case of Morriseau v. Thunder Bay Police Service Board, 2025 HRTO 1644 (CanLII), has provided an in-depth look into allegations of discrimination and reprisal.
The applicant, Georjann Morriseau, who identifies as Indigenous. and who served as Chair of the Thunder Bay Police Service Board (the “Board”) from December 2019 to December 2020, subsequently remaining an appointed member, filed five applications with the Tribunal between October 22, 2021, and August 29, 2022.
Morriseau is no longer a member of the Police Services Board.
In the filings made to the Human Rights Tribunal, Morriseau alleged discrimination based on race and ethnic origin, and reprisal, contrary to subsections 5(1) and 8 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 (the “Code”).
The Tribunal considered these applications together to facilitate their fair, just, and expeditious resolution.
The HRTO’s jurisdiction is limited to enforcing the Code, and it does not have jurisdiction over general allegations of unfairness unless linked to a prohibited ground of discrimination.
At the pre-hearing stage, the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s version of events as true when determining jurisdictional issues.
Allegations and Tribunal’s Jurisdictional Rulings
The Tribunal examined each of Morriseau’s allegations to determine if they had a sufficient factual basis to proceed.
Discrimination Allegations:
The HomeSense Incident and Leak Investigations (August 2020 – October 2021): Morriseau alleged that investigations by the Thunder Bay Police Service (TBPS) and the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) into a “leak” of text messages involving a TBPS officer and a “notoriously racist Facebook page” were a “cover-up” and that investigators’ questioning of her credibility perpetuated racist stereotypes of Indigenous people.
The Tribunal acknowledged that anti-Indigenous discrimination exists in policing and that Indigenous people have historically been stereotyped as dishonest.
However, it concluded that Morriseau’s argument – that because TBPS investigators doubted her account and because she is Indigenous, they may have doubted her because of her Indigeneity – was a “bald assertion” and not a sufficient factual basis for the discrimination claim to continue based on this incident.
Kristen Oliver’s Remarks (Undated): Morriseau alleged that Board Chair Kristen Oliver made derogatory remarks about her Indigeneity and its influence on hiring.
The Tribunal found these allegations lacked particulars (what was said, when, where, to whom) and therefore could not determine if they were related to Morriseau’s Code-protected characteristics, leading to dismissal.
John Hannam’s Remarks (November 2020): Morriseau alleged that Board Secretary John Hannam denigrated her Indigeneity and Indigenous governance accountability initiatives during a telephone call, telling her things worked differently at the Board than “on the rez” and implying she should apologize for a heated disagreement with another Board member.
The Tribunal found these comments, on their face, could be discriminatory and constituted a clear factual basis for a discrimination claim against Mr. Hannam.
However, the Tribunal noted the Board’s submission that her relationship to Board members might not be an “employment relationship” under subsection 5(1) of the Code, and directed Morriseau to provide further submissions on this specific jurisdictional issue.
Reprisal Allegations: The Code’s reprisal provision (Section 8) protects an applicant’s right to “institute and participate in proceedings” under the Code without reprisal. The Tribunal clarified that this provision does not shield applicants from criticism or contradiction, nor does it compel respondents’ assent to allegations. A reprisal allegation requires a factual basis beyond “mere suspicion and belief”.
Motion to Refer Conduct to the OCPC (November 16, 2021): Morriseau alleged Board members moved to initiate an investigation into her leaking confidential information to the media as a pretext for reprisal for her initial Application. The Tribunal found no factual basis beyond suspicion for this assertion and dismissed the allegation.
Police Briefings: Morriseau alleged that Chief Sylvie Hauth and Ms. Walbourne dismissed her Tribunal claims as false and warned officers against public discussion, which she considered reprisal.
The Tribunal stated that denying allegations or warning officers about violating internal rules does not constitute reprisal against an applicant.
Selectively Addressing Complaints: Morriseau alleged the Board hired an investigator for harassment complaints by Staff Sergeant Dimini and Ms. Walbourne but took no action on her complaints.
The Tribunal found this could not reasonably be construed as reprisal, as the Board is entitled to oppose applications and consider other complaints.
Integrity Commissioner’s Reports: Morriseau alleged the Board unlawfully appointed an Integrity Commissioner to draft reports attacking her credibility and implying wrongdoing as retaliation.
The Tribunal found her submissions lacked particulars on what the reports said or how they constituted an action or threat of reprisal, dismissing the allegation.
Statements to the Media: Morriseau alleged Chief Hauth, Chair Oliver, and Secretary Hannam made media statements implying she was “a problem”.
The Tribunal reiterated that disputing an applicant’s account or criticizing them is not reprisal.
Barring from Virtual Press Briefing (March 16, 2022): Morriseau alleged the Board refused to admit her and other journalists to a virtual press conference.
The Tribunal found this could reasonably be construed as an adverse action taken against her for initiating Code proceedings, and this allegation will continue.
Describing Applications as a “Personality Dispute”: Morriseau took exception to the Board Administrator’s characterization of her concerns.
The Tribunal found no link to her Code-protected characteristics for discrimination, nor any action or threat for reprisal, leading to dismissal.
Interrupting Media Interview (June 2022): Morriseau alleged that Mr. Hannam interrupted her media interview to announce the start of a Board meeting and “slammed” a door.
While her claim of discrimination due to race lacked a factual basis, the Tribunal concluded that this incident could conceivably be construed as reprisal for her having instituted proceedings under the Code, and this allegation will continue.
Consolidation of Applications and Removal of Parties
The Tribunal decided to consolidate the First, Fourth, and Fifth Applications into a single proceeding. This decision was based on factors such as avoiding multiple proceedings, reducing expense and delay, and the presence of common issues, despite the applicant’s preference for them to be heard together but not consolidated.
Additionally, the Tribunal removed former TBPS Chief Sylvie Hauth, Kristen Oliver, and Holly Walbourne as personal respondents.
The principle applied is that where a corporate respondent (the Board) can be held liable and provide a remedy, individual employees acting in the course of their duties are often not necessary parties, unless there is a “compelling juridical reason”.
• The Board is named as a corporate respondent and is deemed liable for acts done by its officers in the course of their employment.
• The Tribunal found no issue with the Board’s ability to remedy a Code infringement.
• For former Chief Hauth and Ms. Walbourne, the Tribunal found no compelling juridical reason to keep them as parties, especially since the allegations involving them were dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
• John Hannam, however, will remain a personal respondent because his alleged discriminatory remarks were not clearly uttered in the course of his employment, and his personal conduct is a central issue in the remaining allegations.
Interim Decision and Next Steps
Based on this interim decision, the following allegations will continue in the Tribunal’s process:
• The allegation that Board Secretary John Hannam subjected Georjann Morriseau to discrimination based on race or ethnic origin during a telephone call in November 2020 (from the First Application).
• The allegation that the Board subjected Georjann Morriseau to reprisal when it refused to admit her to a virtual press briefing on March 16, 2022 (from the Fourth Application).
• The allegation that the Board and John Hannam subjected Georjann Morriseau to reprisal by interrupting her media interview in June 2022 (from the Fifth Application).
All other allegations set out in the First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Applications have been dismissed by the Tribunal.
As a next step, the HRT states, Morriseau is directed to provide further submissions within 28 days to address whether and how her relationship to Board Secretary John Hannam constituted an employment relationship that would engage subsection 5(1) of the Code regarding his alleged discriminatory remarks.
The Board is not required to provide further submissions on this issue but may do so.
The two reprisal allegations will continue in the Tribunal’s process without further jurisdictional submissions needed at this stage.
