Ruling upholds human rights tribunal’s finding of no discrimination based on race or colour
While accepting the absence of racial discrimination, the Ontario Divisional Court held that the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal did not clearly make factual findings on whether a clinic’s doctor or receptionist misgendered a Black trans man despite knowing his preferred name and pronouns.
In Thorne v. Good Health Walk-In Clinic, 2026 ONSC 453, the applicant patient alleged that the respondent clinic discriminated against him based on his race and colour by treating him as a drug-seeking Black person.
According to the applicant, the clinic’s receptionist and doctor misgendered him multiple times after he specifically and repeatedly asked them to use his correct pronouns and name.
The applicant added that the clinic’s doctor discriminated against him based on his gender identity and gender expression by refusing to examine his chest scars from a recent gender-affirming double mastectomy surgery.
The clinic denied the allegations. While the receptionist admitted to misgendering the applicant, she claimed that she relied on the Ontario Health Insurance Plan records for his gender.
The doctor said the applicant sought a narcotic prescription, not a chest examination. The doctor allegedly denied treatment due to the clinic’s policy to refrain from providing narcotic prescriptions to walk-in patients visiting for the first time.
In October 2024, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the applicant’s discrimination claim. In February 2025, the tribunal denied his request for a reconsideration. The tribunal determined that he failed to establish prima facie discrimination.
The tribunal found that the clinic denied treatment according to its policy, not due to the applicant’s race or colour. According to the tribunal, the clinic submitted that it acted inadvertently to the extent that there was a misuse of names and/or pronouns after the applicant stated his preferences. The clinic apologized for its oversight.
In its credibility findings, the tribunal accepted the statements of the clinic’s witnesses regarding the applicant’s requested treatment and the reason for the denial. The tribunal believed that the applicant sought a narcotic prescription, not an examination of his chest scars.
The applicant applied for a judicial review of the tribunal’s decision. He argued that the tribunal’s decisions were unreasonable because the tribunal failed to sufficiently address his misgendering allegations or consider his allegations of discrimination based on race and colour. He did not challenge the tribunal’s credibility findings.
The applicant also requested a sealing order and a publication ban over his medical records and identity.
New hearing ordered
The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the application only in relation to the issue of misgendering and gender expression, set aside the tribunal’s decisions regarding this issue, and ordered a new hearing on this issue before another adjudicator. The court ordered no costs.
The court sealed the portion of the court documents containing the medical records, as they met the test in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25. It left the remaining court documents in the public record. It denied the anonymity order.
The court acknowledged that the tribunal dealt with the allegation of discrimination based on race and colour and correctly found no material facts to support that claim.
However, the court saw a fundamental gap in the tribunal’s consideration of the misgendering allegations. According to the court, the tribunal tried to fill that gap in a manner contradicting the jurisprudence on the role of intent in assessing prima facie discrimination.
The court concluded that the tribunal failed to address the following questions, as it should have done:
- whether the misgendering was related to the applicant’s trans status
- what impact the doctor’s or the receptionist’s behaviour had on him
- whether that impact was adverse
