Ontario tribunal rescinds $45,000 award and orders new discrimination hearing

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario rescinded a $45,000 discrimination award, plus interest, against Home Alone Property Management Services Limited and ordered a new hearing after finding that the respondents should not have lost their right to participate.

In its September 2, 2026 reconsideration decision, 2026 HRTO 1369, Vice-Chair Joseph Tascona concluded that the respondents had not abandoned their defence despite failing to answer tribunal directions. Their previous participation, the long delay in the proceedings and their representative’s negligence were central to that conclusion.

The ruling set aside the August 13 decision in its entirety. It did not determine whether Morley Wilson’s employment discrimination allegations were true or exonerate the employer. Those issues were left for a new hearing.

Participation followed by unanswered directions

Wilson, a former utilities clerk, filed the application in May 2018, alleging discriminatory treatment at work and a discriminatory dismissal. Home Alone and a manager named as a respondent denied the claims in their response that year.

The parties attended mediation in January 2019 and took part in mediation-adjudication at the start of a hearing that November. The dispute did not settle, and further hearing dates were to be arranged. The respondents’ representative declined another mediation offer in 2023.

In January 2025, the tribunal directed the parties to file documents and information needed for the hearing. Further directions followed in August and September. The respondents’ representative replied in August, but the required materials remained outstanding.

The final direction warned that a respondent who did not comply could lose the right to further notice and participation. It was sent to the respondents’ representative by email and mail. Wilson eventually complied with the direction; the respondents did not respond.

In the November 21, 2025 default decision, 2025 HRTO 2876, the tribunal found that the respondents had chosen not to participate despite the warnings. It deemed them to have waived their rights to notice and participation and directed that the case proceed without them.

The reconsideration reasons say, however, that the respondents were not sent that default decision itself. The tribunal then held the June 3, 2026 merits hearing without notifying them and without their participation. That absence of notice was distinct from the earlier directions and warnings that had been sent.

The August 13 decision, 2026 HRTO 1242 had upheld Wilson’s discrimination case and ordered Home Alone to pay $25,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect and $20,000 for lost income, with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. It also required the company to post the Human Rights Code or a poster about it in the workplace. Those remedies formed part of the decision later rescinded.

Why the tribunal reopened the case

Home Alone requested reconsideration on August 14, the day after the award was issued. Its president said the company had not known about the representative’s conduct that led to the loss of hearing rights. Wilson opposed reconsideration.

Tascona considered Rule 26.5(b), which permits reconsideration where a party was entitled to notice of a proceeding or hearing but did not receive it through no fault of its own. He emphasized that reconsideration is discretionary, not an appeal or another opportunity to improve the presentation of a case.

Drawing on Divisional Court decisions concerning abandonment, the vice-chair examined the respondents’ conduct in context. They had filed a defence and participated in both mediation and mediation-adjudication. There had been a significant delay between those events and the 2025 hearing directions. There was no evidence that the respondents knew their representative had failed to answer the final direction.

Against that history, Tascona found that the failure to respond to the email and mailed letter did not support a conclusion that the respondents had abandoned their intention to defend the complaint. He attributed responsibility for the error to their representative’s negligence.

Wilson had not demonstrated prejudice that could not be compensated and that would prevent the respondents from having a hearing, he found. In the circumstances, the prejudice to the respondents took precedence over Wilson’s interest in relying on the earlier decision.

“I find the order of the Tribunal unfair in all the circumstances,” Tascona wrote.

He found that Rule 26.5(b) was satisfied, granted reconsideration and directed the registrar to schedule a new hearing. The decision’s treatment of unanswered correspondence depended on this case’s history; it did not establish a general permission to disregard tribunal directions.

The September 2 reasons do not set a date for the new hearing or resolve the underlying employment allegations.