Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review challenged the HRTO’s refusal to hear a human rights complaint filed one day late.

• The Tribunal rejected an extension request, finding the applicant failed to show good faith for the delay.

• Applicant had first filed a similar complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission within the limitation period.

• HRTO failed to reasonably assess whether the federal filing explained the provincial delay.

• Court found the one-day delay and applicant’s prompt follow-up reflected a good faith effort.

• HRTO’s decision was set aside and the matter was remitted for a hearing on the merits.

Background and procedural history
Owen Konkle, through litigation guardian Jennifer Korstanje, brought a human rights complaint against the Canada Games Council. The complaint arose from a change to eligibility rules for “special athletes” (those with intellectual disabilities) participating in the Canada Games. The new rule allegedly discriminated against these athletes while leaving para-athletes and able-bodied athletes unaffected. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) dismissed the application as untimely, finding it was filed one day after the one-year limitation period set by the Human Rights Code.

Efforts to file with the appropriate body
Before filing with the HRTO, Konkle had submitted a similar complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) within the limitation period. On August 1, 2023, the CHRC concluded it did not have jurisdiction and suggested the matter fell within provincial authority. Konkle filed the HRTO application nine days later on August 11, 2023, which the Tribunal deemed one day late. The HRTO then declined to extend the filing deadline under section 34(2) of the Code, holding that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

Court’s analysis of good faith and reasonableness
The Divisional Court unanimously disagreed with the HRTO’s assessment. It held that the applicant’s actions showed a consistent intent to pursue the complaint and that the initial filing with the CHRC was entirely reasonable. The Court criticized the Tribunal for failing to properly consider the context of the short delay and the applicant’s prompt follow-up once jurisdiction was clarified. The Court emphasized that it is unreasonable to expect an accounting for each day in cases of such minimal delay, particularly when there is no evidence of bad faith or prejudice.

Distinguishing case law and rejecting strict interpretation
The Court distinguished this case from previous HRTO decisions where ignorance of legal rights or lack of action led to late filings. Unlike those cases, Konkle had acted diligently and in pursuit of their rights through proper legal channels. The Court also clarified that the statutory language in section 34(2) does not demand an extraordinary justification for short delays, especially where no substantial prejudice was alleged or demonstrated.

Outcome and next steps
The Court set aside the HRTO’s dismissal and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to be heard on its merits. No costs were ordered, as agreed by the parties. This decision affirms a more flexible and context-sensitive approach to procedural fairness in human rights matters and reinforces access to justice where applicants act reasonably in navigating jurisdictional complexities.