(Disponible en français)
This document provides a brief overview of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s (HRTO) approach to managing issues related to its jurisdiction. This FAQ is not a rule within the meaning of the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure (Rules).
For more information, review the Practice Direction on Jurisdiction and Rule 13.
The jurisdiction of a court, tribunal, or administrative body is the range of issues and applications that the body has the authority to deal with. An adjudicative body like the HRTO can only consider and decide applications that fall within its legal authority (its jurisdiction).
The HRTO’s legal authority is given to it by Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 (the “Code”).
The HRTO has jurisdiction over an Application alleging that the Code has been infringed, provided that the Application has been filed in compliance with the Code, and unless the HRTO determines that it lacks jurisdiction.
There are many different possible reasons why the HRTO may not have jurisdiction over an Application.
For example, some Applications that might otherwise be within the HRTO’s jurisdiction cannot be dealt with by the HRTO because they were filed late. Sections 34(1) and 34(2) of the Code state that an Application must be filed within one year of the last incident of alleged discrimination, unless the HRTO is satisfied that the delay in filing the Application was incurred in “good faith” and there would be no “substantial prejudice” to anyone affected by the delay. If an applicant files an Application outside of the limitation period and without providing a good faith reason for the delay in filing, the HRTO may lack jurisdiction to hear the Application.
Other reasons the HRTO may lack jurisdiction over an Application include:
The HRTO decides issues about its own jurisdiction.
If an HRTO adjudicator determines that an Application may be outside of the HRTO’s jurisdiction, the adjudicator will raise the issue with the parties and provide them with the opportunity to make submissions. After providing that opportunity for submissions, if the HRTO decides that it does not have jurisdiction over an Application, it will release a written decision dismissing the Application for that reason.
A jurisdictional review is the process used to determine whether the HRTO has the authority to hear an Application. In a jurisdictional review, an HRTO adjudicator reviews the Application and considers whether some or all of the Application may be outside of the HRTO’s jurisdiction.
Jurisdictional reviews may occur at various points in an Application’s processing. Every Application undergoes at least one jurisdictional review during the pleadings stage (when the Application and Response(s) are filed and shared between the parties). Some Applications may also undergo further jurisdictional review at a later stage in the proceedings.
How jurisdiction is assessed and addressed depends on when during the Application’s processing the jurisdictional issue is identified and raised.
The HRTO will only dismiss an Application for lack of jurisdiction at a preliminary stage (before an oral hearing is held), based on the written record alone, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the Application that it is outside of the HRTO’s jurisdiction. In these circumstances, the HRTO typically sends a “Notice of Intent to Dismiss” (a “NOID”) letter providing information about the apparent jurisdictional issue and the reasons for the intended dismissal, and giving the applicant an opportunity to file written submissions in response. Where an adjudicator determines that it is plain and obvious that the Application is outside of the HRTO’s jurisdiction, the Application may be dismissed at an early stage without a hearing.
In other circumstances, the HRTO may address its jurisdiction at a hearing. There are several ways this could happen.
A “summary hearing” is a type of non-evidentiary preliminary hearing held under Rule 19A which considers whether some or all of an Application should be dismissed as having “no reasonable prospect of success” (NRPS). See here for the HRTO’s FAQ on Summary Hearings and its Practice Direction on Summary Hearing Requests.
Although jurisdictional issues are not the only issues considered at a summary hearing, jurisdictional issues may be addressed at a summary hearing. This is because if an Application is outside of the HRTO’s jurisdiction, then it has no reasonable prospect of success. In some cases, an Application in which jurisdictional issues have been raised in a NOID will be directed to a summary hearing to provide the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions on the issues as part of the broader NRPS analysis. In other cases, an Application in which jurisdiction has not yet been raised may be directed to a summary hearing, and jurisdictional issues may be dealt with at the hearing as part of the broader NRPS analysis.
In other circumstances, the HRTO may require evidence in order to decide whether it has jurisdiction over an Application. For example, whether the HRTO has jurisdiction over an Application may depend on when (e.g., what year) or where (e.g., what province) a specific event took place, and the parties may disagree about what happened. In these cases, the HRTO may hold a preliminary evidentiary hearing specifically on the question of its jurisdiction. The HRTO may also deal with jurisdictional issues as part of its full hearing into the merits of the Application.
A “NOID” is a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. It is a letter directed by an HRTO adjudicator and issued by the HRTO’s Registrar which explains that the HRTO is intending to dismiss an Application as outside of the HRTO’s jurisdiction. The NOID explains what the apparent jurisdictional issues are and provides an opportunity for the applicant, and any other parties in receipt of the letter, to make submissions.
Rule 13 of the HRTO’s Rules and Section 4.6 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, requires the HRTO to issue a NOID providing the opportunity for written submissions before the HRTO dismisses an Application for lack of jurisdiction.
No, not always. It depends on when the jurisdictional issues are being raised and what the jurisdictional issues are. The answer to this question is related to the answer to “How is Jurisdiction Assessed and Addressed?” above.
A NOID letter is typically used during the pleadings (when the Application and Response(s) are filed and shared between the parties) or shortly after the end of the pleadings. In some cases, a NOID may be issued shortly after a mediation, if the mediation was scheduled early in an Application’s processing.
In other cases, jurisdictional issues may be raised in preparation for or at a summary hearing, held under Rule 19A, to determine whether the Application should be dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success. A summary hearing may be directed by way of a Registrar’s letter directed by an adjudicator or through a Case Assessment Direction written by an adjudicator.
If an Application is not dismissed early in its processing, and is not the subject of a summary hearing, the Tribunal may raise jurisdictional issues by way of a Case Assessment Direction or at a Case Management Conference Call (followed by a Case Assessment Direction).
Whenever and however the issue of jurisdiction is raised, the applicant (and any other parties in receipt of the Application) will be provided the opportunity to make submissions before an adjudicator decides whether to dismiss the Application.
No. Under the HRTO’s approach to considering its jurisdiction, jurisdictional review does not evaluate the quality, strength, or merits of an Application. In a jurisdictional review, the question the HRTO adjudicator is considering is whether the Application, as filed, contains allegations under the Code that the HRTO has the authority to adjudicate.
Whether the HRTO has jurisdiction over an Application is not related to whether the Application is meritorious or whether it has a chance of succeeding at a merits hearing. An Application may be within the HRTO’s jurisdiction while having only a very small chance of being successful at a merits hearing.
Yes; however, if the HRTO is assessing its jurisdiction at a preliminary stage (as raised in a NOID), the HRTO considers factual issues only in a specific and narrow way.
At a preliminary stage, the HRTO will only dismiss an Application on the basis of the written record alone when it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the Application that it is outside of the HRTO’s jurisdiction. In considering whether it is plain and obvious that the HRTO lacks jurisdiction, the HRTO adjudicator reads the applicant’s Application and subsequent submissions and assesses whether the allegations, taken as true, could amount to a breach of the Code by the respondent(s). At this stage, the HRTO accepts as true any factual allegations made by the applicant (for example, about things that the respondent is alleged to have done or not done). The question the HRTO adjudicator is considering is whether the facts, taken as true, could amount to a breach of the Code by the respondent(s) within the Code’s statutory limitation period (one year).
For example, an applicant may file an Application alleging that a neighbour from a nearby subdivision made discriminatory remarks against the applicant when the two encountered each other on the sidewalk one morning. An HRTO adjudicator reviewing this Application may find that the allegations, as pleaded, could not amount to a breach of the Code by the respondent, because the events described in the Application did not occur within one of the Code’s social areas (services, goods and facilities; employment; accommodation/housing; contracts; membership in a vocational association).
In a different example, an applicant may allege that they were treated badly by their boss (e.g., forced to work on weekends) and identify that they have a Code-protected characteristic (e.g., being a man; being a member of a certain organized religion), but not allege or explain any connection between their Code-protected characteristic and the alleged negative treatment they received. If an applicant does not provide any explanation for why they believe that their Code grounds may have been a factor in the treatment they received from the respondent, an HRTO adjudicator may determine that the applicant has not made allegations that, even when taken as true, could amount to a breach of the Code.
In these examples, the HRTO’s jurisdictional assessment does involve considering the facts as pleaded by the applicant but it does not involve weighing the strength, seriousness, merit, or plausibility of the applicant’s allegations. The HRTO accepts as true the applicant’s factual allegations and considers whether those allegations could amount to a breach of the Code.
For further information regarding the determination of whether factual allegations could amount to a breach of the Code at a jurisdictional review stage, see for example the Divisional Court decision in Georgiou v. Unity Health Toronto et al., 2026 ONSC 3778.
At an evidentiary hearing, the HRTO may deal with jurisdictional issues by hearing evidence and making decisions about factual issues that concern its jurisdiction. For example, at an evidentiary hearing, the HRTO may hear evidence and determine that, contrary to an applicant’s representation of events, the final allegation in their Application (their termination from their former workplace) occurred 18 months before the Application was filed. This finding could result in the HRTO dismissing the Application for lack of jurisdiction, because it was filed late, if the applicant does not provide a “good faith” reason for the delay in filing the Application.
Generally, the HRTO does not request documentary evidence in its preliminary jurisdictional reviews. However, under limited circumstances, the HRTO may direct an applicant to file documentary evidence in a NOID.
For example, where an Application was filed outside of the one-year limitation period in the Code, and the applicant is asserting that they have a medical reason for the delay in filing, the HRTO may direct the applicant to provide medical evidence in support of their position, so that the HRTO can consider whether the applicant may be able to provide a good faith explanation for their delay in filing (as required by section 34(2) of the Code).
When the HRTO requests evidence during a preliminary jurisdictional review, the HRTO assumes the truth of any evidence filed by the applicant. If the HRTO must consider the strength or credibility of any of the applicant’s evidence in order to decide the jurisdictional question, the HRTO would address these issues at an evidentiary hearing.
The NOID explains the reasons that the HRTO adjudicator thinks the Application, as pleaded, is outside of the HRTO’s jurisdiction, and it requires you to make submissions.
If you believe that the HRTO has jurisdiction over the Application, you should file submissions explaining why you believe the HRTO has jurisdiction. Read the NOID very carefully, including the section that outlines the jurisdictional issues raised. Then provide submissions responding directly to the issues and questions raised by the HRTO.
The HRTO is an impartial adjudicative body and it is not able to provide legal assistance or advice to any party to or participant in an Application. However, there are resources available to you that you may wish to consider.
The HRTO has a Practice Direction on Jurisdiction with more information. Parties may wish to review the provisions of the Human Rights Code as well as the HRTO’s Rules, Practice Directions, Policies, and Guides to its processes, all of which are available on the HRTO’s website. These materials are all available in a variety of accessible formats. To request a copy of these documents, please contact the HRTO by email at HRTO.Registrar@ontario.ca, by phone at 416-326-1312 or toll free 1-866-598-0322, or by TTY at 1-800-855-0511.
HRTO decisions including all decisions about the HRTO’s jurisdiction can be accessed free of charge through the Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII).
A party who requires more time to file submissions in response to a NOID (or another request for submissions) may file a Form 10 (Request for an Order During Proceedings) in compliance with Rule 19. Parties seeking extensions of time should read the HRTO’s Practice Direction on Extension Requests.
If you are an applicant and you want to receive legal assistance or advice, you may contact the Human Rights Legal Support Centre at 180 Dundas Street West, 8th Floor, Toronto, ON M7A 0A1 or by phone toll free at 1-866-625-5179, in Toronto 416-597-4900 or TTY at 711, Fax: 416-597-4901, toll free fax 1-866-625-5180.
Yes, but the adjudicator will only consider your submissions in a limited way.
As explained above, when the HRTO issues a NOID, it is considering whether it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the Application that the Application is outside of the HRTO’s jurisdiction. In considering whether it is plain and obvious that the HRTO lacks jurisdiction, the HRTO adjudicator reads the applicant’s Application and subsequent submissions and assesses whether the allegations, as pleaded, could amount to a breach of the Code by the respondent(s).
Since the HRTO assumes the truth of the applicant’s factual allegations at the stage of preliminary jurisdictional review, the HRTO will not consider your (the respondent’s) factual position if you disagree with or contradict the applicant’s representation of events. If the Application proceeds, at a later stage, the HRTO would consider the evidence in favor of each party’s position, but in a preliminary jurisdictional review, the respondent’s version of events is given no weight.
However, the HRTO adjudicator would consider and evaluate any legal submissions you make about whether the applicant’s allegations, as pleaded, could amount to a breach of the Code. For example, a respondent may wish to highlight past HRTO cases, or cases from the Divisional Court or the Court of Appeal where an HRTO application has been judicially reviewed, and where applications with similar factual allegations were dismissed on a jurisdictional basis.
Not necessarily.
When the HRTO issues a NOID, its assessment of its jurisdiction considers whether it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the Application that it is outside of the HRTO’s jurisdiction. In allowing the Application to continue (when an adjudicator directs the issuance of an "Application to Continue” letter), the HRTO adjudicator decided only that it is not plain and obvious that the entirety of the Application is outside of the HRTO’s jurisdiction.
Even if it is not plain and obvious that the entirety of the Application is outside of the HRTO’s jurisdiction, the HRTO may still decide at a later stage, based on a different (higher) decision-making standard, that the HRTO lacks jurisdiction over some or all of the Application. For example, an HRTO adjudicator may determine that based on the written record and the applicant’s submissions, it is not plain and obvious that the Application did not occur within one of the Code’s social areas. Later, at a hearing, after hearing evidence from the parties, the HRTO may determine that the Application must be dismissed because it did not occur within one of the Code’s social areas.
When the HRTO issues a NOID, the applicant’s submissions are mandatory. The applicant must file submissions in response to the NOID if they want their Application to continue. If you (as the applicant) fail to respond to a NOID, there are two significant risks to your Application.
First, the HRTO adjudicator may decide the jurisdictional issue(s) outlined in the NOID without the benefit of your submissions. This could result in your Application being dismissed for the jurisdictional reasons outlined in the NOID.
Second, if the HRTO adjudicator reviews the totality of the record and determines that you have abandoned your Application, your Application could be dismissed for that reason alone.
To avoid your Application being dismissed as abandoned, or dismissed jurisdictionally in the absence of your submissions, it is critical that you file written submissions in compliance with the NOID by the deadline set in the NOID.
Typically, if the mandatory submissions are not received by the deadline set in the NOID, the HRTO will reach out to you, the applicant, once further prior to an adjudicator determining if the Application has been abandoned. For more information regarding communicating with the HRTO, see the Practice Direction on Communicating with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
A party who requires more time to file submissions in response to a NOID (or another request for submissions) may file a Form 10 (Request for an Order During Proceedings) in compliance with Rule 19. Parties seeking extensions of time should read the HRTO’s Practice Direction on Extension Requests.
Like all final decisions made by the HRTO, a decision to dismiss an Application for lack of jurisdiction may be the subject of a Request for Reconsideration. You may file a Form 20 (Request for Reconsideration) within 30 days of the date of the decision in compliance with Rule 26.
You may also wish to file an application for judicial review with the Divisional Court; however, the Court may refuse to consider your application for judicial review if you have not first requested reconsideration from the HRTO.