|
Human Rights (Ont) - Irregularities. 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 notes that 's.48(3)' [should be 43(8) - 'Failure to comply with rules'] of the HRC excuses non-prejudicial irregularities:[11] .... Subsection 48(3) of the Code expressly provides that the failure on the part of the Tribunal to comply with the practices and procedures under its rules or to exercise its discretion in a particular manner under the rules are not a ground for setting aside a decision of the Tribunal “unless the failure or exercise of discretion caused a substantial wrong which affected the final disposition of the matter.”
[12] To the extent the Tribunal referenced the incorrect date for the application, this is a minor mistake that did not impact procedural fairness. It was also appropriate for the Tribunal to allow counsel additional time to file their materials. To do so was well within the Tribunal’s discretion. The applicant has not demonstrated any unfairness or prejudice resulting from the extension. The Tribunal is also entitled to correct clerical errors, such as the name of counsel on a decision, without consent. These minor procedural issues and errors did not cause unfairness. They also did not cause “a substantial wrong” that “affected the final disposition of the matter” under s. 48(3) of the Code.
[13] There was also no unfairness in allowing the Tribunal to file its factum on the application in this court, as alleged by the applicant in his oral submissions. The applicant was served with the factum on January 30, 2026, well in advance of the court hearing. Although the front page of the Tribunal’s factum was incorrectly dated January 30, 2025, this typographical error had no impact on the proceeding and caused the applicant no prejudice.
|
