In John v. Swedcan Lumican Plastics Inc., 2025 ONSC 3022, the Ontario Divisional Court addressed important issues relating to procedural fairness in the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal’s (“HRTO”) process.
Background
A manager with 8 months’ service was terminated by Swedcan Lumican Plastics (“Swedcan”) while on sick leave. The employee filed an application with the HRTO against the employer and two personal respondents, the President and Vice-President, for their alleged discriminatory and harassing behaviour based on disability, as well as a failure to accommodate.
HRTO Proceedings
The President and Vice-President of Swedcan sought to be removed as personal respondents of the application through a summary hearing. That request was denied by the HRTO, ordering that the application proceed in the normal course. A merits hearing commenced on March 3, 2020, and the applicant provided testimony before the hearing was adjourned.
The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in significant delays at the HRTO. More than four years later, a case management conference was held. At that stage, the HRTO ordered a summary hearing, ultimately removing the President and Vice-President as respondents and dismissing the application in its entirety on the basis that it had “no reasonable prospect of success,” finding no evidentiary link between the alleged conduct and a Code-protected ground.
The Divisional Court’s Decision
On judicial review, the Divisional Court identified multiple flaws in the HRTO’s approach which included that:
- The HRTO failed to address several material allegations without explanation;
- There was no acknowledgment that a merits hearing had already begun, that the applicant had testified, or that the applicant’s counsel had objected to a summary hearing;
- The decision offered no justification for the change in procedural course;
- While removing the President and Vice-President as personal respondents was reasonable, dismissing the application for no reasonable prospect of success was not;
- The HRTO failed to meet its independent obligation to assess the evidence already before it; and
- The prior refusal of a summary hearing and commencement of the merits hearing created a legitimate expectation of procedural fairness.
Outcome
The Divisional Court found the HRTO’s decision to be procedurally unfair and unreasonable. The application was remitted back to the HRTO for a merits hearing.
This decision highlights the importance of understanding the HRTO process and how procedural issues can affect the outcome of a case. As the HRTO continues to manage backlogs, it is critical for employers and employees to know how to navigate steps such as summary hearings, procedural objections, and present evidence in a way that fully supports their position under the Ontario Human Rights Code. If you are an employer or employee facing an HRTO proceeding and need guidance on protecting your rights or effectively presenting your case, TMLLP can provide practical advice and representation to help you through the process.
By: Alexa Saleski