|
Human Rights (Ont) - Reconsiderations. Trudel v. Meta Platforms Inc. [internet]
In Trudel v. Meta Platforms Inc. (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a JR, this brought against "a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) refusing to reconsider its earlier ruling that it lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction over the applicant’s human rights complaint. The HRTO found the applicant was late in seeking reconsideration and refused to grant him an extension of time."
Here the court considered a late reconsideration request denial situation, which it denied against the applicant as it found that the federal HR system had jurisdiction over the complaint:HRTO denies the applicant’s request for reconsideration
[9] On February 21, 2024, the applicant requested reconsideration of the HRTO’s jurisdictional decision, asserting that the CHRC’s email constituted new evidence. He submitted that the CHRC’s response confirmed that the HRTO had erred in declining jurisdiction over his complaint.
[10] Rule 25.5.1 of the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure provides that a request for reconsideration filed more than 30 days after a decision will not be granted unless the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice results. The applicant submitted to the HRTO that, after receiving the jurisdiction decision, he brought his complaint to the CHRC. He filed his reconsideration request promptly upon receiving the CHRC’s unfavourable response. He argued that the delay was incurred in good faith and that Meta would not be prejudiced.
[11] On June 9, 2025, the HRTO refused to reconsider its jurisdictional decision. It noted that the applicant only contacted the CHRC on January 7, 2025, approximately sixty days after the HRTO issued its jurisdictional decision. The HRTO found that the applicant had been aware of the jurisdictional issue since at least January 31, 2024, and that he could have approached the CHRC earlier. It concluded that the applicant had not pursued the confirmation of jurisdiction with diligence and that it could not conclude that his delay in seeking reconsideration was incurred in good faith.
....
Analysis
[15] The applicable standard of review for the HRTO’s finding that the applicant’s delay in seeking reconsideration was not incurred in good faith — a question of mixed fact and law — is reasonableness[.]
[16] The applicant’s submissions on this point have merit. After receiving the HRTO’s jurisdictional ruling, it was reasonable for him to contact the CHRC to determine whether his complaint against Meta could proceed in that forum. There was no obligation to do so immediately. The 60‑day period between the HRTO’s jurisdiction decision and the contact with the CHRC does not demonstrate a failure to pursue his rights; rather, it reflects his acceptance of the HRTO’s ruling at the time. Once the CHRC advised him on February 20, 2024 that it too lacked jurisdiction, the applicant promptly sought reconsideration from the HRTO.
[17] Despite the merit in this argument, we do not need to determine whether the HRTO’s refusal to grant an extension of time was unreasonable. The application must be dismissed in any event because, even if an extension of time for reconsideration had been granted, we conclude that the HRTO’s jurisdictional decision was correct.
[18] The standard of review on the question of whether the HRTO had jurisdiction is correctness for two reasons: First, the decision raises a question regarding the jurisdictional boundaries between two tribunals; second, the decision raises a constitutional question regarding the division of powers: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, at paras. 56, 63. The correctness standard applies to jurisdictional boundaries questions, even if the inquiry is fact-specific: Northern Regional Authority v. Horrocks, 2021 SCC 42, at para. 9.
[19] The applicant sought reconsideration of the jurisdiction decision after receiving the CHRC’s email of February 20, 2024, in which it was stated that “it did not appear” that the applicant had raised matters involving a federally regulated body. However, the email was unsigned and provided no analysis or authority beyond its conclusory assertion that Meta Platforms was not under federal jurisdiction.
[20] The HRTO may exercise only the powers conferred on it by the Code. Although the Code contains no express limitation restricting the HRTO’s jurisdiction to matters within provincial competence, it remains a provincial statute and cannot confer authority over matters that fall within Parliament’s exclusive jurisdiction. The constitutional doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity prevents one level of government from legislating in a way that impairs the core of the other’s legislative powers. This doctrine arises from the division of powers set out in the Constitution Act, 1867: Bell Canada v. Quebec (Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail), 1988 CanLII 81 (SCC), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 749, at para. 255.
[21] Section 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867 grants provincial legislatures exclusive authority to make laws in relation to “Local Works and Undertakings,” except for specified classes, including “Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province.”
[22] The Quebec Court of Appeal recently held that federal jurisdiction in matters of telecommunications, developed in cases involving the transmission of radio signals, images, or Hertzian or other waves must logically extend to the emission, reception and retransmission of Internet signals: Procureur général du Québec v. Association canadienne des télécommunications sans fil, 2021 QCCA 730, at paras 121-123. In Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, 2004 SCC 45 at para. 42, the Supreme Court held that information transmitted over the internet constitutes a telecommunication.
[23] Meta provides its services over the internet and is therefore an undertaking that extends beyond the limits of the Province of Ontario. This conclusion is consistent with prior decisions of the HRTO (Liu v. Meta Platforms Inc. (o/a Facebook), 2022 HRTO 684; Hutcheson v. Meta Platforms Inc., 2022 HRTO 698; Libera v. Meta Platforms Inc. (o/a Facebook), 2022 HRTO 705) and of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (Elson v. Facebook, Inc., 2021 BCHRT 155).
[24] Finally, among the purposes of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H‑6 (“CHRA”), as set out in s. 2, is the prevention of discrimination “within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament.” We note that Parliament has enacted, or sought to enact, legislation regulating social media companies, including the Online News Act, S.C. 2023, c. 23, and the proposed Online Harms Act, Bill C-63, which was tabled in the House of Commons on May 30, 2024 but died on the order paper following the prorogation of Parliament on January 6, 2025. . Laho v. Metro Ontario Inc.
In Laho v. Metro Ontario Inc. (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court considers the nature of an HRTO reconsideration:Was the Reconsideration Decision unreasonable?
[42] Reconsideration under r. 26.5 of the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure is a discretionary remedy and is not an opportunity for parties to change the way they present their case. An applicant can successfully request reconsideration by pointing to new and potentially determinative facts unavailable earlier, by identifying conflicts with established jurisprudence, by showing that they did not receive proper notice, or by convincing the Tribunal that other factors outweigh the public’s interest in the finality of decisions. While Mr. Laho argued under this last exception, this is a discretionary decision and deference is owed to the Tribunal member’s expertise. The Reconsideration Decision is not unreasonable. . Yan v. Mohawk College
In Yan v. Mohawk College (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR against an HRTO decision that found no discrimination by the College respondent.
Here the court considered an HRTO reconsideration:[8] The applicant sought a reconsideration. The applicant relied on the HRTO rule that permits a reconsideration where that there are new facts or evidence submitted on the request for reconsideration that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not have been submitted earlier.
[9] The Adjudicator was not persuaded that the above grounds for reconsideration were met. The Adjudicator found that the events described by the applicant were not new – they were all known to her when she provided her submissions in response to the notice of intent to dismiss. ....
....
[17] With respect to the reconsideration decision, this Court has also stressed that discretionary findings with respect to the HTRO adjudicating requests for reconsideration in applications under the Code “are areas of expertise unique to the Tribunal. ... A high degree of deference should be accorded to such decisions”: Mohmand v. Ontario (Human Rights Tribunal), 2021 ONSC 528 (Div. Ct.), at para. 19. . Danso v. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario et al.
In Danso v. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario et al. (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court considers the common (although equally commonly unsatisfied) complaint that an administrative reconsideration should be heard by a different member than the original hearing, here in an HRTO context:[79] ... Additionally, the Applicant submits that his Reconsideration Application was decided by another Adjudicator (M. Borer) because the Tribunal knew Adjudicator Tamburro was biased.
[80] There is no requirement in Rule 26 of the Code that mandates or directs that any Reconsideration Application must be heard by the same Adjudicator.
[81] The Rule only speaks to the “The Tribunal” considering a Reconsideration Application. . Danso v. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario et al.
In Danso v. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario et al. (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court states authority for an HRTO reconsideration 'test':[33] That request for Reconsideration was filed by the Applicant and was accompanied by a request to amend the initial Reconsideration request. The Adjudicator referenced the principles applicable to Reconsideration requests noting that a Reconsideration is not an appeal or a hearing de novo: Landau v. Ontario (Minister of Finance), 2012 ONSC 6926 (Div. Ct.), at para. 17.
....
[51] With respect to the Reconsideration Application, Adjudicator Borer correctly sets out the appropriate test for reconsideration as prescribed in Londau [SS: should be 'Landau']. Reference is also made to the decision of the Divisional Court in James v. York University and Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, 2015 ONSC 2234 (Div. Dt.), 339 O.A.C. 68, at para. 58, where the court states it is reasonable to decline to reconsider the original decision where there are “no compelling and extraordinary circumstances for doing so and there were no circumstances which outweighed the public interest in the finality of order and decisions of the Tribunal.” . Mehedi v. Mondalez Bakery
In Mehedi v. Mondalez Bakery (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court noted that an HRTO reconsideration decision was discretionary in nature, and thus subject to deferential judicial review:[19] Similarly, the Reconsideration Decision was reasonable in finding that the Applicant had failed to establish any of the available grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 of the HRTO’s Rules. Moreover, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. The HRTO’s exercise of discretion is thus entitled to a high degree of deference: Paul James v. York University and Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, 2015 ONSC 2234, at para. 57. We see no reason to interfere with the Reconsideration Decision. . Graham v. New Horizon System Solutions
In Graham v. New Horizon System Solutions (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court concludes that an HRTO reconsideration [under HRC s.45.7] is discretionary at the hands of the tribunal, even when requested by the applicant:[33] ... Under s. 45.7 of the Code and r. 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, there is no right to have a decision reconsidered. A reconsideration is not an appeal, and the Tribunal will only reconsider a decision in specified circumstances. ...
|
