Recently, the Ontario Divisional Court in Bokhari v. Top Medical Transportation Services, 2026 ONSC 1073 (Bokhari) provided definitive guidance on the proper approach to jurisdictional screening at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the Tribunal). The decision restores the “plain and obvious” standard for dismissal of applications for lack of jurisdiction. While the decision expands access to relief under the Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code), it simultaneously weakens a key procedural tool used by the Tribunal to reduce its backlog. Whether the decision ultimately enhances access to justice remains to be seen.
Tension between Access to Justice and Efficiency
The Tribunal is equipped with a range of procedural tools to dismiss applications that ought not to proceed to a full hearing, including summary hearings and early dismissals for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 13 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
While dismissals of applications for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 13 have enabled the Tribunal to manage its caseload, this tool carries serious implications for access to justice, as applications may be dismissed without the benefit of an oral hearing or evidence. Since jurisdictional dismissals occur at a preliminary stage of the Tribunal’s process, they foreclose the opportunity for applicants to fully articulate their claim for relief under the Code.
The Tribunal has historically dismissed applications for lack of jurisdiction only if it were “plain and obvious” that the application falls outside the Tribunal’s authority. In recent cases, such as Bokhari, it has shifted to the less stringent “balance of probabilities” standard, effectively lowering the bar for early dismissals and allowing the Tribunal to swiftly dispose of numerous cases on its docket. The Court in Bokhari rejected this approach and confirmed that the “plain and obvious” standard applies.