Ontario Court Opens Door to New Legal Claim for Injury to Dignity in Anti-Black Racism Case

The Ontario Superior Court has opened the door to what could become a new cause of action in Canadian law — one recognizing injury to dignity and well-being arising from exposure to a workplace polluted by anti-Black racism and misogynoir.

This case, Dixon v Ontario (Attorney General), may mark a significant development not only in human rights and employment law, but also in how Canadian courts recognize and respond to the lived realities of systemic anti-Black racism in public institutions.

The Background

The self-represented plaintiff, Jean-Marie Dixon, is a Crown lawyer who alleges that she — and other Black women within the Ontario Public Service — were subjected to:

1️⃣ The perpetuation of historical anti-Black racism rooted in the Transatlantic Slave Trade and the reactionary restructuring of Canadian society after abolition; and

2️⃣ Race- and sex-based discrimination, including the assignment of demeaning work, lateral moves, and suspension as alleged reprisal for raising concerns.

Ontario’s Arguments

The province sought to dismiss the claim, arguing that:

1️⃣ Under Weber v Ontario Hydro, unionized employees are barred from bringing workplace-related claims to court; and

2️⃣ Ms. Dixon was bound by the arbitration process set out in the collective agreement between Ontario and the Association of Law Officers of the Crown (ALOC).

The Court’s Decision

The Superior Court rejected both arguments, finding that:

1️⃣ The Weber bar applies only to statutory unions, not to voluntary associations like ALOC; and

2️⃣ Ontario failed to prove that Ms. Dixon agreed to the collective agreement in question (really interesting labour law analysis here, with ramifications for employers who voluntarily recognize non-statutory unions).

Even more importantly, the Court found that the claim extended beyond the scope of the Ontario Human Rights Code. Specifically, the Court held that the portion of Ms. Dixon’s claim dealing with the generalized perpetuation of anti-Black racism in the Ontario Public Service could not be confined to the Code because “generalized adverse treatment of protected groups cannot found a case under s.5 of the Code in the absence of specific adverse treatment.”

A Legal and Conceptual Turning Point in Anti-Black Racism

This part of the reasoning raises interesting questions about whether the Court fully considered the concept of a poisoned work environment — a well-established form of systemic discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

A poisoned environment arises when pervasive racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory conduct creates a hostile or degrading atmosphere, even if the complainant cannot identify a single discrete act directed at them personally.

Ms. Dixon must still prove at trial that her claim supports recognition of this new cause of action. The Court noted that the trier of fact may ultimately conclude no such development is needed if the Ontario Human Rights Commission already has the authority to address cultures of anti-Black racism in government institutions.

The Bigger Picture

Whatever the outcome, Ms. Dixon’s persistence in advancing this claim is incredibly brave and a vital part of bending that long arc of the moral universe toward justice.

You're amazing, Jean-Marie. ✊