Update: Divisional Court Clarifies Proper Test in Disability Discrimination Case

Update: Divisional Court Clarifies Proper Test in Disability Discrimination Case

Bokhari v. Top Medical Transportation Services, 2026 ONSC 1073

February 24, 2026 – Toronto, ON — The Divisional Court has set aside a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), clarifying the proper legal test that must be applied when screening human rights applications for jurisdiction at an early stage.

What Happened

Ali Bokhari brought an application to the HRTO alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after sustaining an ankle injury. The Tribunal dismissed the case at a preliminary stage under Rule 13 of its Rules of Procedure, finding it did not have jurisdiction to consider the application because the injury did not fall within the meaning of “disability” under the Human Rights Code.

The Human Rights Legal Support Centre (the HRLSC) intervened in the judicial review to address broader access to justice concerns arising from the Tribunal’s approach.

The HRLSC submitted that the Tribunal’s Rules establish two distinct screening mechanisms:

• Rule 13 applies where an application is plainly and obviously outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
• Rule 19A applies where an application is within jurisdiction but may have no reasonable prospect of success — and requires an oral hearing.

The HRLSC argued that, in Mr. Bokhari’s case, the Tribunal’s analysis moved beyond jurisdiction and into a merits assessment, effectively collapsing the two procedures.

“We intervened because people deserve a fair chance to have their case heard,” said Remi Warner, Executive Director of the HRLSC. “Many applicants are navigating this process on their own. This ruling helps make sure their claims are considered properly before being dismissed.”

The Divisional Court agreed.

What the Court Decided

In its decision, the Court found that:

• The Tribunal applied an incorrect and lowered test under Rule 13;
• It engaged in a merits review rather than a jurisdictional screening;
• It adopted an unreasonably narrow approach to disability that did not align with governing jurisprudence.

The Court found that the HRTO has jurisdiction to hear the application and ordered that the matter proceed to the next stage of the HRTO process before a different adjudicator.

“The Court confirmed that Rule 13 cannot be used to decide whether an applicant will ultimately succeed,” said Megan Evans Maxwell, counsel for the HRLSC. “Where an application is within jurisdiction, the proper path is a hearing process that allows evidence to be tested. That distinction matters.”

Why This Matters

In recent years, there has been an increase in early dismissals under Rule 13. The HRLSC’s intervention highlighted the impact this approach may have on self-represented applicants, many of whom draft their own applications without access to disclosure or legal assistance.

The Court affirmed that while the HRTO has tools to manage its caseload efficiently, jurisdictional screening must not become a substitute for a merits determination.

The decision provides clarity going forward and supports a fair and accessible human rights process for applicants across Ontario.

Media Contact:  media@hrlsc.on.ca 

ABOUT THE HRLSC: The Human Rights Legal Support Centre advances equality and protects human rights by providing a range of accessible, high quality legal advice and support services to individuals who have faced discrimination or harassment contrary to Ontario’s Human Rights Code. The HRLSC is an independent, board-governed agency funded by the Government of Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General. It was established in 2008 as one of three pillars of Ontario’s human rights system. The other two pillars are the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and the Ontario Human Rights Commission.