New changes to HRTO Rules of Procedure & Practice Directions – Les nouveaux changements des règles de procédure et directives de pratique The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) announced updates to its Rules of Procedure, Practice Directions, Forms and operational processes coming into effect as of August 17, 2026. Please see our home page or Human Rights Law Updates section for details. --- Le Tribunal des droits de la personne de l’Ontario (TDPO) a annoncé des mises à jour à ses Règles de procédure, ses directives de pratique, ses formulaires et ses processus opérationnels. Les mises à jour entrent en vigueur le 17 août 2026. Pour plus d'informations, veuillez consulter notre page d'accueil ou notre section « Mises à jour de la loi ».

HRLSC Logo Home
Accessibility
Popular Topics:
[contact-form-7 id="1123" title="RFP Form"]

News about duty-to-accommodate

Interim Decision – Race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and sex/Services, goods and facilities

A recent HRTO interim decision has confirmed that a regulatory complaint does not prevent a human rights application from moving forward.

The Human Rights Legal Support Centre (HRLSC) represented the applicant in Scott v. VP Protection Inc., 2026 HRTO 886, who alleged racial and gender discrimination by security guards at a Brampton shopping mall. After the incident, the applicant brought a complaint to the Private Security & Investigative Services Branch (PSISB) in 2018, which ended after facilitation with a mediator.

The applicant then filed a human rights application in 2019 with the HRTO. The respondents requested an early dismissal, under section 45.1 of the Code; claiming that the PSISB process had already addressed the matter.

The HRTO rejected the argument that the PSISB had duplicated the role of a Tribunal hearing, finding that the PSISB process was for a “distinctly different purpose.” The PSISB facilitation was non-adjudicative, meaning it could not make making rulings on the evidence or provide a binding decision, including providing human rights remedies. As a result, the HRTO ruled it had not “appropriately dealt with” the substance of the application, and the HRTO application could proceed.

For more information about subjects discussed in this case, please see our Guide on Early Dismissal of an Application as well as our Guide on Choosing where to file human rights claims or complaints.