Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Central issue concerned the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s dismissal of an employment discrimination application as abandoned after the applicant failed to respond to a jurisdictional request.
• Significance of a “full and final release” raised a jurisdictional question that the applicant was required, but failed, to address in timely submissions.
• Applicant’s explanation that hacked email and erased submissions caused the default was unsupported by evidence and did not cure the failure to comply with Tribunal directions.
• Judicial review materials focused on the underlying human rights allegations and remedies sought, rather than on the legality or reasonableness of the HRTO’s abandonment and reconsideration decisions.
• Divisional Court applied Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the judicial review to be frivolous, devoid of merit, and an abuse of process because it sought relief the Court could not grant.
• Unclear and inappropriate remedial requests (reinstatement, lost wages, moral damages) underscored that the application did not raise proper grounds for judicial review and had no chance of success.

Background and human rights complaint
The case arises from an employment dispute between the applicant, Shinnette C. Macalolot, and her former employer, the City of Toronto VPD/TPH. The applicant commenced an application before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of ethnic origin, as well as sexual harassment, unwelcome solicitation or advances, and reprisal, all contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code. These allegations placed the matter squarely within human rights and employment law, but the core issue that reached the Divisional Court was procedural rather than substantive.

Request to dismiss at the Human Rights Tribunal
During the HRTO proceeding, the City of Toronto asked the Tribunal to dismiss the application on the ground that there was already a “full and final release” covering the same issues in dispute. In response to that request, on December 6, 2024 the HRTO sent the applicant a letter titled “Delivery of Response and Notice of Request to Dismiss.” The letter directed the applicant to file responding submissions by January 6, 2025 and clearly warned that failing to meet the deadline could result in the application being treated as abandoned. The Tribunal specifically sought submissions addressing whether it had jurisdiction to proceed in light of the alleged full and final release, but the applicant did not provide those submissions by the deadline.

Abandonment decision and late responses
On February 6, 2025, having received no response addressing its jurisdictional concern, the HRTO dismissed the human rights application as abandoned. The Tribunal’s decision was based on the applicant’s failure to file the required submissions concerning its jurisdiction to consider the complaint where a full and final release was alleged. Four days later, on February 10, 2025, the applicant filed a Form 11 (Response to Request for Order During Proceedings), approximately one month after the deadline. She asserted that her email account had been hacked and that former colleagues had erased her timely submissions to the Tribunal. However, she provided no evidence to substantiate this explanation. On February 25, 2025, the applicant resubmitted another Form 11, attaching her resume and documents about her qualifications. None of these materials addressed the respondent’s request to dismiss the HRTO Application, nor did they grapple with the jurisdictional question about the full and final release.

Reconsideration request at the Tribunal
Also on February 25, 2025, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the abandonment decision. The HRTO ultimately denied this request in a decision dated June 20, 2025. The Tribunal maintained its position that the application had been properly dismissed as abandoned because of the applicant’s failure to provide the required submissions. The reconsideration stage did not reopen or resolve the underlying discrimination allegations; rather, it confirmed that the proceeding would not move forward because of the earlier procedural default.

Judicial review application to the Divisional Court
The applicant then applied to the Ontario Divisional Court for judicial review of both the February 6, 2025 abandonment decision and the June 20, 2025 reconsideration decision. There was some uncertainty about whether she had complied with prior filing timelines set by Justice Nakatsuru on November 4, 2025, but by March 3, 2026 the Court accepted that her material now appeared to be filed. After reviewing the HRTO decisions and the judicial review application, the Court issued a direction that a Form 2.1 notice be served. This notice advised that the Court was considering dismissing the proceeding because it was asking for relief that the Divisional Court could not grant and because no proper grounds for judicial review had been raised. The Court observed that the applicant’s materials focused on the underlying human rights dispute (the substantive allegations of discrimination and harassment) even though the HRTO had never adjudicated those merits. Instead of challenging the legality or reasonableness of the HRTO’s abandonment and reconsideration decisions, the applicant continued to argue the factual merits of her discrimination case. She was given 15 days to file a written submission (no more than ten pages) responding to these concerns.

Use of Rule 2.1 and characterization as frivolous
Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to stay or dismiss a proceeding that appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process. Appellate authority stresses that this summary measure must be reserved for the clearest of cases. After receiving and reviewing the applicant’s ten-page submission, the Divisional Court concluded that this was such a clear case. The submission again addressed only the substantive discrimination issues originally raised before the HRTO and repeated the same factual assertions relied upon at the reconsideration stage. It did not identify any reviewable error in the HRTO’s decisions to dismiss the application as abandoned and to deny reconsideration. The Court found that the judicial review application was devoid of merit and thus frivolous and an abuse of process. In addition, the Court noted that the relief the applicant appeared to be seeking included reinstatement to employment, an order for lost wages, and moral damages. These are remedies the Divisional Court, sitting in judicial review, does not have jurisdiction to grant directly in this context, further underscoring that the proceeding did not properly engage the Court’s judicial review function.

Final disposition and outcome for the parties
In its final reasons, the Divisional Court held that the applicant had failed to put forward any proper ground for judicial review and that the application had no chance of success. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the judicial review under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The successful party in this proceeding was the respondent, the City of Toronto VPD/TPH, because the challenge to the HRTO’s abandonment and reconsideration decisions was summarily rejected. The decision does not specify any award of damages or costs in favor of the City, and it does not quantify any monetary amount ordered; therefore, no total monetary award, costs, or damages in favor of the successful party can be determined from this judgment.