The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has dismissed an application alleging that an automotive dealership discriminated against an individual based on disability over his refusal to wear a mask.
The applicant, JK, claimed he had been denied service due to his inability to wear a mask for medical reasons. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish a connection between his alleged disability and the actions of the automotive dealership.
Case background
The applicant filed an Application under the Human Rights Code of Ontario, stating he was medically exempt from wearing a mask and was subsequently denied service. The Tribunal had requested the applicant provide medical evidence detailing his disability and explaining how it prevented him from wearing a mask.
This request was emphasized in both a Notice of Intent to Dismiss dated Aug. 15, 2022, and a Case Assessment Direction dated Aug. 24, 2023.
Despite these directions, the applicant did not provide the required medical evidence. Instead, JK offered general information about his disability and the difficulties he faced with mask-wearing.
Analysis and decision
The decision followed a hearing conducted in writing, and the Tribunal clarified it was not obligated to hold an oral hearing on jurisdictional matters.
The Human Rights Code of Ontario restricts the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to actions that discriminate based on enumerated grounds in a protected social area. For an application to proceed, an applicant must provide more than a “bald assertion,” establishing a factual basis linking the alleged discrimination to the respondent’s actions.
In this case, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet this standard. Without medical evidence, the Tribunal could not establish whether the applicant’s claim of discrimination based on disability was within its jurisdiction.
“In the circumstances of this case, I find that the applicant has failed to provide a factual basis beyond a bald assertion which links their alleged ground of disability to the respondent’s actions,” the Tribunal stated in its decision. “Accordingly, the Application does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.”
For more information, see Kay v. Alpha Labs, 2023 HRTO 1373 (CanLII)
