In Laksaman v. Aramark (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court set out the HRTO's procedural time extension test:
[24] As noted in the HRTO’s decision, it has discretion to lengthen and shorten time limits imposed by its Rules. A person seeking an extension of a time limit must demonstrate (a) that the delay was incurred in good faith; and (b) if there is such an explanation, to show that no party will experience substantial prejudice because of the delay.
[25] This approach has been applied by the HRTO and affirmed on judicial review with respect to the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code as well as in other cases where the HRTO mandated time limits, such as the 60-day deadline to submit a request for reactivation involved here (see: Tang v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2021 ONSC 6523 (Div.Ct.)).
....
[34] It has been noted that the governing legislation gives clear direction that HRTO decisions, including procedural decisions, are to be given a high degree of deference so as to ensure that human rights disputes can be resolved in an expeditious manner. Similarly, the HRTO must be able to control its own proceedings in a manner that is expeditious and offers an efficient resolution for the parties (see: James v York University et al., 2015 ONSC 2234; Taucar v Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2017 ONSC 2604).
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
