|
Human Rights (Ont) - HRC-Inapplicable Activities. Nyaberi v. TD Insurance
In Nyaberi v. TD Insurance (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed an HRTO JR, this brought against "its decision dismissing the application for jurisdictional reasons", being that although the HRTO application alleged discrimination in "the social areas defined by the Code, which are: services, goods and facilities, accommodation, contracts, employment and membership in vocational associations", "their only relationship was as opposing parties in the personal injury action" and that none of these activities applied.
Here the court holds that there are some 'activities' to which the HRC does not apply:[4] After receiving the respondents’ response to the application before the Tribunal and the applicant’s reply, the Tribunal requested submissions on several jurisdictional issues. These included the question of whether the application alleged discrimination with respect to any of the social areas defined by the Code, which are: services, goods and facilities, accommodation, contracts, employment and membership in vocational associations. After receiving submissions from the parties, on December 17, 2024, the Tribunal issued its decision dismissing the application for jurisdictional reasons. It concluded the relationship between the parties was not in the social areas covered by the Code since their only relationship was as opposing parties in the personal injury action.
....
[8] The decision was reasonable. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to specified social areas set out in sections 1 to 6 of the Code. This court has previously confirmed the relationship between a lawyer and opposing party is not covered by the Code: Zheng v. G4S Secure Solutions (Canada) Ltd., 2022 ONSC 93, at para. 10. The Tribunal was not required to look further into the specific conduct of the parties because, as a threshold matter, it did not have jurisdiction over the dispute. There is no basis to interfere in the Tribunal’s decision on the ground of failure to apply the law, evidence, or facts.
|
