Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the applicant’s case at a summary hearing despite an earlier decision to proceed with a full merits hearing.

• The applicant alleged discrimination and failure to accommodate his disability during and leading up to termination from employment.

• The tribunal struck individual respondents from the case, finding their employer could be vicariously liable for their conduct.

• The court found the tribunal’s dismissal decision unreasonable for ignoring material evidence that could support a link to Code-protected grounds.

• Procedural fairness was denied when the tribunal reversed an earlier decision and substituted a summary hearing without justification.

• The Divisional Court granted judicial review, reinstated the application, and ordered a new merits hearing before a different Vice-Chair.

Background and tribunal history

Peter Paul John was employed as a Customer Service Manager at Swedcan Lumican Plastics Inc. (SLPI) from March to November 2017. He alleged that he was required to perform physical labour that aggravated existing injuries, and despite notifying supervisors, he received no meaningful accommodation. In November 2017, while on a doctor-mandated sick leave, he was terminated due to an alleged "shortage of work."

In 2018, Mr. John filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), claiming discrimination and harassment in employment due to disability, contrary to sections 5(1), 5(2), and 17(2) of the Human Rights Code. SLPI and its executives Desmond and Xandra Kendall were named as respondents.

In 2019, the HRTO denied a request by the respondents for a summary hearing and scheduled a full merits hearing. That hearing began in March 2020, with Mr. John providing evidence before it was adjourned. For unknown reasons, the case stalled for several years until 2024, when a new Vice-Chair ordered a summary hearing, disregarding the earlier process and over the objections of Mr. John’s counsel.

The tribunal’s decision and judicial review

In October 2024, the HRTO struck the names of the individual respondents and dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal ruled that even if all of Mr. John's allegations were true, there was no evidence linking the alleged mistreatment to a Code-protected ground. The Vice-Chair cited lack of direct requests for accommodation and the absence of clear evidence of disability-based discrimination.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court found that the HRTO’s decision to dismiss the application was unreasonable. The tribunal failed to address significant evidence, including testimony and documentation indicating the applicant's physical impairments were known within the workplace and that he feared reporting issues due to his supervisor's hostile conduct.

The court noted the Vice-Chair did not explain why these pieces of evidence did not meet the low threshold required to proceed beyond a summary hearing. The tribunal also ignored that the prior Vice-Chair had already denied a summary hearing and started a merits hearing in 2020. This abrupt shift without justification violated Mr. John’s legitimate expectations and denied him procedural fairness.

While the court upheld the decision to strike the Kendalls from the application due to SLPI’s agreement to accept vicarious liability, it strongly criticized the process used to dismiss the broader claim.

Outcome

The Divisional Court granted judicial review and ordered the matter remitted to the HRTO for a full merits hearing before a different Vice-Chair. Mr. John was awarded $15,000 in costs. The decision underscores the importance of respecting procedural integrity and providing clear reasons when adjudicators deviate from previously established paths, particularly in sensitive human rights matters.