@import url(‘https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=Montserrat:wght@400;600;700&display=swap’);
body { : ‘Montserrat’, Arial, sans-serif; 36454f; : 1.65; }
.al h2 { : ‘Montserrat’, Arial, sans-serif; 023054; : 26px; : 1.3; margin: 2em 0 0.6em; }
.al h3 { : ‘Montserrat’, Arial, sans-serif; 023054; : 19px; margin: 1.6em 0 0.5em; }
.al p { margin: 0 0 1.1em; : 17px; }
.al a { 0b4d82; }
.al ul, .al ol { margin: 0 0 1.2em 1.2em; padding: 0; }
.al li { margin: 0 0 0.5em; : 17px; }
.al .updated { : 14px; 5a6b78; letter-spacing: 0.04em; text-transform: uppercase; margin: 0 0 1.4em; }
.al .answer-box { background: #023054; border-radius: 6px; padding: 26px 28px; margin: 1.8em 0; }
.al .answer-box .label { display: block; : 12px; letter-spacing: 0.12em; text-transform: uppercase; d9e6f5; margin: 0 0 10px; }
.al .answer-box .lead { fff; : 19px; font-weight: 700; margin: 0 0 12px; }
.al .answer-box p { d9e6f5; : 16px; margin: 0; }
.al .findings { display: grid; grid-template-columns: 1fr 1fr 1fr; gap: 14px; margin: 1.6em 0; }
.al .finding { background: #023054; border-radius: 6px; padding: 18px 20px; }
.al .finding h3 { fff; margin: 0 0 6px; : 17px; }
.al .finding p { d9e6f5; : 15px; margin: 0; }
.al .accent { background: #b0c4de; border-radius: 6px; padding: 22px 26px; margin: 2em 0; }
.al .accent p { 023054; : 16px; margin: 0 0 0.8em; }
.al .accent p:last-child { margin: 0; : 14px; }
.al .checklist { background: #f5f8fb; border: 1px solid #d0dce6; border-radius: 6px; padding: 24px 28px; margin: 2em 0; }
.al .checklist h3 { margin-top: 0; }
.al .faq { margin: 2em 0; }
.al .faq-item { border-bottom: 1px solid #d0dce6; padding: 18px 0; }
.al .faq-item h3 { margin: 0 0 8px; : 18px; }
.al .faq-item p { : 16px; margin: 0; }
.al .related { background: #edf4fb; border-radius: 6px; padding: 22px 26px; margin: 2em 0; }
.al .related h3 { margin-top: 0; }
.al .disclaimer { : 14px; 5a6b78; font-style: italic; }
.al .table-wrap { overflow-x: auto; margin: 1.6em 0; }
.al table { border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%; : 16px; }
.al th { background: #023054; fff; text-align: left; padding: 12px 14px; width: 30%; }
.al td { padding: 12px 14px; border-bottom: 1px solid #d0dce6; background: #f5f8fb; }
@media (max-width: 600px) {
.al h2 { : 22px; }
.al .findings { grid-template-columns: 1fr; }
.al .answer-box, .al .checklist, .al .related, .al .accent { padding: 20px; }
}
@media (max-width: 380px) {
.al p, .al li { : 16px; }
}
A newly hired employee was let go two weeks into a probationary period and filed a human rights application alleging race discrimination and reprisal. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed every part of it. The employer won because it could produce witnesses who described specific performance problems and the training given to address them, which is the whole of the lesson for employers.
Updated September 2026
This article sets out what happened in Shingiro v. Trylon TSF Inc., what the tribunal decided on discrimination and on reprisal, and what the decision does and does not permit an employer to do during a probationary period.
| Case | Shingiro v. Trylon TSF Inc. |
|---|---|
| Citation | 2025 HRTO 2215 |
| Forum | Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario |
| Claims | Discrimination in employment on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin; reprisal |
| Outcome | Application dismissed in full |
A probationary dismissal survives a human rights challenge where the employer can show, through evidence rather than assertion, that performance drove the decision and that the protected ground played no part in it.
The reprisal claim failed on a separate point. The employee had disclosed an ongoing human rights claim against a previous employer, but there was no evidence the decision makers knew about it when they ended his employment. Reprisal requires knowledge. Without it the claim has nowhere to go.
What happened
Trylon TSF Inc., based in Elmira, Ontario, hired two employees at the same time. The applicant identified as Black. The other new hire was White. Within two weeks the applicant’s employment ended during his probationary period.
He brought an application to the tribunal alleging that he had been treated worse than the co-worker who started alongside him, pointing to overtime he was not given, a delay in receiving a toolbox, and a lack of help setting up his payroll information. He alleged the dismissal itself was because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin. He also alleged reprisal, on the basis that he had disclosed an ongoing human rights claim against a previous employer on his job application.
What the tribunal decided
No connection to a ground
The tribunal found no evidence that race or any other protected characteristic played a part in how the applicant was treated or in the decision to end his employment.
Performance was documented
Several witnesses gave evidence that the applicant worked considerably more slowly than the role required and needed repeated correction after training.
No knowledge, no reprisal
There was no proof the employer knew of the earlier human rights claim at the time of the dismissal, or that it influenced anyone involved.
Differential treatment on its own does not establish discrimination. The applicant had to connect the treatment to a protected ground, and the tribunal was not persuaded that the overtime, the toolbox or the payroll assistance had anything to do with race. Two employees starting the same week rarely have identical first fortnights, and a difference in experience is only evidence of discrimination if something links it to the ground.
What employers should not read into this
The outcome is comfortable. The route to it was not.
- Probation is not a defence. The Human Rights Code applies from the first day of employment. There is no probationary window in which a discriminatory dismissal becomes lawful, and length of service is not a jurisdictional bar at the tribunal.
- A two week employment still produced a full proceeding. The employer had to respond, produce documents, field witnesses and defend the decision. Winning is not the same as avoiding the cost.
- The evidence won it, not the probationary clause. Had the employer’s witnesses been unable to describe what the performance problem actually was, the same facts would have looked very different.
- Knowledge cut the reprisal claim off, not good intentions. Where a prior claim is disclosed on an application form and someone in the hiring chain has seen it, that element is present and the analysis moves to whether it was a factor.
The last point deserves attention from anyone who screens applications. A disclosure on a form is capable of putting the employer on notice. Keeping recruitment records that show who saw what, and when, is what allowed the employer here to meet the question directly.
What this means alongside the rest of the termination rules
A human rights application is one of several routes open to a short service employee. The Employment Standards Act, 2000 sets its own notice entitlements, which begin once an employee has three months of service, and common law reasonable notice can apply from the first day depending on the contract. A probationary clause governs the contractual position; it does nothing about the Code. Our articles on probationary periods in Ontario and on dismissing short service employees set out how those pieces fit together.
The allegation about overtime is worth noting separately. It failed here as a discrimination claim, but unequal distribution of hours can raise its own questions under employment standards, which our article on overtime obligations for employers covers. A complaint that fails on one ground can still open an employer’s records to scrutiny on another.
The decision was issued in 2025 and no reconsideration or judicial review has been located. Tribunal decisions can be reconsidered under Rule 26 within 30 days, and judicial review lies to the Divisional Court, so confirm the status of any decision before relying on it.
Current as of September 2026.
What this decision asks of an employer
- Set out in writing what the role requires in its first weeks, so performance has a standard to fall short of.
- Record the training given, who gave it, and what was corrected, at the time rather than afterwards.
- Keep new hires on comparable terms where the work is comparable, including access to overtime and equipment.
- Have more than one person able to speak to the performance problem.
- Note who in the hiring chain saw any disclosure of a previous claim, complaint or proceeding.
- Make the decision on the recorded reasons, and make sure the reasons given to the employee match the ones in the file.
Frequently asked questions
Can an employer dismiss a probationary employee for any reason in Ontario?
No. A probationary clause can limit the contractual notice owed, but the Human Rights Code applies from the first day. A dismissal connected to a protected ground is unlawful whether it happens in week two or year ten.
Does a short period of employment stop a human rights application?
No. There is no minimum service requirement at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. The application in this case concerned an employment relationship that lasted about two weeks and still proceeded to a decision.
What is reprisal under the Human Rights Code?
Reprisal is retaliation against someone for claiming or enforcing a right under the Code, or for taking part in a proceeding under it. It requires the employer to have known about the protected activity, which is why the claim failed here.
Can a prior human rights claim against a former employer be held against an applicant?
No. Acting on knowledge of an earlier claim would itself invite a reprisal finding. The safer practice is to keep that information away from the people assessing performance and making the dismissal decision, and to be able to show that separation.
What evidence does an employer need to defend a probationary dismissal?
Contemporaneous records of what the role required, what the employee did, what training and correction were given, and who made the decision and why. Witness evidence carried the day in this case because it was specific about the work rather than general about attitude.
How Achkar Law helps employers
We act for employers on the decisions that produce applications like this one: drafting probationary and termination provisions, building performance documentation that survives a hearing, and running the dismissal itself. See our work on terminations, dismissals and layoffs, workplace policies, and workplace disputes and litigation when a claim is already filed. Employers in the city can reach our Toronto employment lawyers directly.
This article provides general information about a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and is current as of September 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create a solicitor client relationship. Outcomes turn on the specific facts and evidence in each case.
{
“@context”: “https://schema.org”,
“@type”: “FAQPage”,
“mainEntity”: [
{
“@type”: “Question”,
“name”: “Can an employer dismiss a probationary employee for any reason in Ontario?”,
“acceptedAnswer”: {
“@type”: “Answer”,
“text”: “No. A probationary clause can limit the contractual notice owed, but the Human Rights Code applies from the first day. A dismissal connected to a protected ground is unlawful whether it happens in week two or year ten.”
}
},
{
“@type”: “Question”,
“name”: “Does a short period of employment stop a human rights application?”,
“acceptedAnswer”: {
“@type”: “Answer”,
“text”: “No. There is no minimum service requirement at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. The application in this case concerned an employment relationship that lasted about two weeks and still proceeded to a decision.”
}
},
{
“@type”: “Question”,
“name”: “What is reprisal under the Human Rights Code?”,
“acceptedAnswer”: {
“@type”: “Answer”,
“text”: “Reprisal is retaliation against someone for claiming or enforcing a right under the Code, or for taking part in a proceeding under it. It requires the employer to have known about the protected activity, which is why the claim failed here.”
}
},
{
“@type”: “Question”,
“name”: “Can a prior human rights claim against a former employer be held against an applicant?”,
“acceptedAnswer”: {
“@type”: “Answer”,
“text”: “No. Acting on knowledge of an earlier claim would itself invite a reprisal finding. The safer practice is to keep that information away from the people assessing performance and making the dismissal decision, and to be able to show that separation.”
}
},
{
“@type”: “Question”,
“name”: “What evidence does an employer need to defend a probationary dismissal?”,
“acceptedAnswer”: {
“@type”: “Answer”,
“text”: “Contemporaneous records of what the role required, what the employee did, what training and correction were given, and who made the decision and why. Witness evidence carried the day in this case because it was specific about the work rather than general about attitude.”
}
}
]
}
The post Probationary Firing Survives HRTO Challenge appeared first on Achkar Law.