The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) has dismissed an application alleging discrimination based on disability, sex, pregnancy, and sexual harassment after finding that the applicant failed to meet the deadline for reactivating the case following a criminal proceeding.
Background and deferral of application
The complainant, B.Q., initially filed a complaint against multiple respondents, including two businesses, a chiropractic centre, and an individual, alleging workplace discrimination and reprisal under the Human Rights Code.
In August 2018, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of a related criminal proceeding against one of the respondents. The Ontario Court of Justice (OCJ) ultimately stayed the criminal case on Aug. 11, 2020, citing section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects the right to be tried within a reasonable time.
Under Rule 14.4 of the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure, an applicant must file a request to reactivate a deferred case within 60 days of the conclusion of the related legal proceedings. However, B.Q. did not file a request until Jan. 19, 2021, more than two months beyond the extended deadline.
Tribunal’s analysis and discretion
The Tribunal analyzed the request under Rule 1.7, which grants adjudicators broad discretion to extend or shorten time limits in the interest of ensuring a “fair, just, and expeditious resolution” of cases. It applied the framework established by the Ontario Divisional Court in Pereira v. Hamilton Police Services Board, which clarified that the Tribunal should not be bound by the stricter “good faith” test used under section 34(2) of the Code but should instead assess factors including:
Length of delay – The request was filed 67 days late, exceeding the prescribed 60-day limit by more than double.
Reasons for delay – B.Q. argued that they were unaware of whether the Crown intended to appeal the OCJ decision, delaying their ability to act. The Tribunal found this unpersuasive, noting that B.Q. had legal representation and access to information regarding the case status.
Fairness to the parties – The Tribunal determined that dismissing the application would not be unfair to B.Q., as they had the opportunity to comply with the deadline but failed to do so.
Prejudice to the respondents – The Tribunal accepted that the individual respondent, a regulated healthcare professional, faced reputational harm and ongoing stigma due to the unresolved allegations. It also acknowledged that small business respondents faced challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic and witness availability, though it found the impact on corporate respondents less severe.
Tribunal’s decision
After weighing these factors, the Tribunal concluded that extending the deadline was not warranted. It found that B.Q. had ample opportunity to request reactivation within the required time but failed to do so, and that further delay would unduly prejudice the individual respondent. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
For more information, see B.Q. v. 1900119 Ontario Inc o/a The Augusta House, 2025 HRTO 654 (CanLII).
