Former employee lacked 'clear, convincing and cogent evidence' to support allegations of discrimination, says tribunal
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has dismissed a discrimination application by a former Canada Life Assurance Company employee who alleged her termination for benefit fraud was based on the actions of her husband and son.
In Moosa v. The Canada Life Assurance Company, 2026 HRTO 751, Vice-chair Karen Mason found that the insurer's investigation supported a determination that the applicant herself was complicit, defeating her argument under marital and family status.
Yhumna Moosa worked as a Licensing Administrator at Canada Life from 2006 until 2019, and was covered under the company's group healthcare benefits plan. An investigation by the insurer's Special Investigations Unit – led by Senior Investigator Francis Trafagander – began in December 2018.
The investigation concluded that Ms. Moosa, her husband and her son had submitted claims for items they had not received, including TENS units and braces. The decision records that "some of the claims were made on paper forms which, contrary to the policies of the plan, were signed by the applicant's husband instead of the applicant," while "other claims at issue relating to the applicant's son were signed by and submitted by the applicant."
Reimbursements were paid into "a bank account held solely by the applicant."
A Nov. 15, 2019 termination recommendation by Senior Employee Relations Advisor Petra Duris recorded that Ms. Moosa, when first questioned, said she had two of the three TENS units she had purchased and attended an audit with only one, advising "neither she nor her spouse know anything about the other units."
After being shown video of her husband leaving the clinic with two items earlier the same evening, she admitted calling him "right after speaking with [the investigator] at approximately 3pm."
The recommendation further noted that Ms. Moosa "acknowledged that she signed the claim form for a TENS unit and two braces for herself and that she never received the TENS unit." It noted that she "admitted to knowingly submitting claims to GWL for items that she did not receive and that the bank account associated with her benefit plan was her sole bank account and not joint with her spouse." Her employment was terminated on Nov. 18, 2019.
Ms. Moosa argued before the Tribunal that the fraud, if committed, was carried out by her husband and son, and that her dismissal therefore discriminated against her on marital and family status. She also alleged failure to accommodate and reprisal in connection with a Record of Employment issued 25 days after her termination.
In 2025, a Manitoba government employee launched a lawsuit against the province and Canada Life after her application for long-term disability (LTD) benefits was denied.
The decision
Vice-chair Mason found the termination was based on the applicant's own conduct, not that of her family members. "I find that the respondent terminated the applicant's employment because its investigation concluded that the applicant was aware of the alleged fraud, participated in the alleged fraud and was the direct benefactor of the alleged fraud," she wrote.
Distinguishing the case from B. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), on which the applicant relied, Mason added: "I do not find that the respondent terminated the applicant's employment because of the actions of her husband or son or that their actions were a part of the respondent's decision to terminate the applicant's employment."
She rejected the accommodation argument, finding the duty to accommodate does not extend to alternative discipline for alleged misconduct. On reprisal, she noted the Tribunal "has no jurisdiction" over the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and found no evidence of retaliatory intent in the delayed Record of Employment, which Ms. Duris attributed to a payroll backlog. The applicant, the decision noted, "did not contest Ms. Duris' testimony or provide any evidence to show that explanation was unlikely."
“I find that the applicant has not brought clear, convincing and cogent evidence to support the allegations that the respondent discriminated against her based on marital or family status, failed to accommodate her nor that they reprised against her for raising her Code rights,” wrote Mason. “For these reasons the Application must be dismissed.”
Earlier this year, the Ontario government sued an HR technology and training vendor for $25.9 million, alleging fraudulent billing and false reporting tied in part to the province’s controversial Skills Development Fund (SDF).
How big of a problem is benefit fraud?
Industry bodies and government auditors have repeatedly tried to size up benefit fraud in Canada, though the figures vary widely by sector, the data are largely estimates rather than audited losses, and several headline numbers have been in circulation for years:
