HRTO Decision Confirms Broader, Contextual Test to Determine Whether an Application has been Abandoned after HRLSC client’s Judicial Review.

In Joseph v. The Governing Council of the University of Toronto, 2025 HRTO 1375 (Joseph), the HRTO adopted guidance from the Divisional Court in a decision around dismissing an application as abandoned.

In Joseph, the HRTO cited the recent Divisional Court decision in Ramirez v. Rockwell Automation Canada Ltd., 2025 ONSC 1408— a judicial review hearing successfully argued by the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (HRLSC) which required a contextualapproach to determining if abandonment had occurred. Under this more flexible and multi-factored approach, HRTO adjudicators must consider all the circumstances of the case and not merely focus on, as occurred in Ramirez, an applicant’s one-time failure to respond to a Tribunal communication.  

In Ramirez, the HRTO had denied a request for reconsideration after the applicant failed to respond to one HRTO email, deeming the application to be abandoned. Ramirez, represented by the HRLSC, submitted that this isolated e-mail incident should not outweigh his pattern of prompt and consistent communications with the Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the HRTO should have examined whether an applicant truly intended to abandon the application, rather than focusing narrowly on the one missed email. More information on the Ramirez decision can be found here.

Ramirez and Joseph demonstrate that a fairer and more just assessment of whether an application is truly abandoned is required, by looking at the applicant’s efforts and conduct throughout the lifespan of the application instead of dismissing  an application based on a single and inadvertent oversight.