The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has dismissed attempts by a former employee of Metro Ontario Inc. to involve the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and its Chief Commissioner in his ongoing legal battle against his employer and union.
The ruling underscores the limits of judicial review in cases involving non-parties to the original tribunal decision.
E.L., a self-represented litigant, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) that dismissed his complaint against Metro Ontario Inc. and Unifor Local 414. He claimed that his employer and union had violated his human rights and that their actions were contrary to various statutory and constitutional protections, including those under the United Nations conventions.
His allegations centred on the failure of these entities to provide the necessary accommodations for his disabilities and to protect his rights under workers’ statutes and the collective agreement.
In an unusual move, E.L. also attempted to draw in the Ontario Human Rights Commission and its Chief Commissioner, arguing that they had a duty to intervene in the reconsideration of his dismissed complaint. E.L. asserted that their refusal to get involved constituted a violation of his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
However, Justice Myers found no legal basis for such an obligation. He noted that “none of the other governmental actors are necessary or proper parties to this proceeding,” as they were not involved in the tribunal’s decision-making process that E.L. was challenging. The court’s analysis focused on whether there was any statutory, constitutional, or UN-based duty compelling the Commission or the Integrity Commissioner to intervene in E.L.’s case.
“Nothing in any of the statutes, constitutional documents, or UN Conventions cited by (E.L.) or of which I am aware creates a legal obligation on the Integrity of Commissioner of Ontario, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, or its Commissioner, to intervene in the legal proceedings between (him) and his employer and union,” Justice Myers stated in his endorsement.
The ruling detailed that the court had initially warned E.L. on July 29, 2024, that it was considering dismissing his claims against the non-parties, and invited him to provide written submissions to argue why these claims should be allowed to proceed. E.L. submitted his arguments on July 31, 2024, reiterating his position that these entities were required to assist him in overturning the tribunal’s decisions. Despite his detailed submissions, the court found that E.L.’s claims against these bodies were “frivolous” within the meaning of Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Justice Myers acknowledged the challenges faced by E.L. as a self-represented litigant, noting that the court had endeavoured to interpret his documents generously, considering whether they might raise any valid legal issues. However, the court concluded that his submissions did not establish any legal grounds that could justify the involvement of the additional respondents in his judicial review application.
The court dismissed E.L.’s application solely as it pertained to the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and its Chief Commissioner. However, the judicial review of the HRTO’s decisions regarding his employer and union remains active.
For more information, see Laho v. Metro Ontario Inc., 2024 ONSC 4738 (CanLII).
