OHRT allows worker opportunity to rewrite, pursue allegations against employer despite 8-year lag
An Ontario human rights application alleging discrimination by a transit contractor will proceed after a tribunal member agreed to reactivate the long‑dormant case and invited the worker to clarify and expand her allegations.
In an interim decision released April 2, 2026, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) granted a request by the bus driver to restart her case against MVT Canadian Bus Inc. and individual respondent Aman Gill, and opened the door to amendments that could reshape the complaint.
The driver alleges discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability and sex, contrary to Ontario’s Human Rights Code. The case, Richmond v. MVT Canadian Bus Inc., had been on hold for years while a related Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) matter made its way through the system.
The application “was previously deferred on consent pending completion of a related proceeding involving the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (‘WSIB’),” adjudicator Aman Dhillon wrote. The deferral occurred “at the earliest stage of the Tribunal’s processes and, as such, the respondents had not been directed to file a Response (Form 2).”
Driver seeks to reactivate application
After the WSIB appeal concluded at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT), the bus driver – now represented by a new paralegal – moved to bring her human rights case back to life.
On Oct. 15, 2020, her representative filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking both to reactivate and to amend the application. In support, they attached the WSIAT decision (No. 918/20) dated Aug. 17, 2020, and argued that it did not fully address the human rights concerns now before the HRTO.
The representative criticized how the original complaint had been framed, telling the tribunal that the application “lacks sufficient particulars” and that “the application was poorly drafted” by the driver’s previous representative when it was first filed.
MVT opposes revival but not amendments
MVT Canadian Bus, represented by a paralegal, opposed the move to reactivate the case but did not contest the idea of amendments if the proceeding were revived.
On Nov. 4, 2022, the company filed a Response to a Request for an Order During Proceedings, relying on section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code. It submitted that the WSIAT proceeding “dealt with the substance of the application” and argued the human rights case should therefore not move forward.
The organizational respondent “took no position with respect to the applicant’s request to amend the application,” Dhillon noted. However, the company failed to copy an affected party, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1775, on its response, “contrary to Rule 19.6.” Neither the individual respondent nor the union filed a response of their own.
Shutting down case ‘premature’
Despite the employer’s reliance on section 45.1 – the Code provision that allows the HRTO to dismiss an application if another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the matter – the adjudicator concluded that shutting down the bus driver’s case now would be premature.
“While it is possible that this application should be dismissed in accordance with section 45.1 of the Code, it would be premature to make such a determination at this stage and without giving the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions before the Tribunal in accordance with section 43(2) of the Code and Rule 22.1,” Dhillon wrote.
The decision also underscores that even a future move to dismiss under section 45.1 would normally presuppose that the file is first brought back into active status. “Further, if the application were to be dismissed pursuant to 45.1, reactivating the Application would be a typical preliminary part of that process,” Dhillon added.
In light of those considerations, the adjudicator concluded “it is appropriate that this application be reactivated in the circumstances,” granting Richmond’s request to proceed.
Tribunal finds reactivation test satisfied
Under the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure, reactivating a deferred application is not automatic. Parties must satisfy specific timing and filing requirements when a case has been paused to await the outcome of another legal process.
Rule 14.4 requires that where an application was deferred pending another proceeding, any request to proceed “must be filed no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding,” and must set out the date that other matter concluded and include a copy of any decision or order.
Dhillon found those procedural preconditions had been met. “In my view, the requirements for reactivation under the Tribunal’s Rules have been met,” the decision states.
Opportunity to rewrite and expand claims
The interim ruling also formally invites the driver to refine and flesh out the allegations that will eventually go before the tribunal.
“The applicant’s representative made a request to amend the application but did not provide particulars such that the Tribunal could make a determination on whether to allow the amendments,” Dhillon wrote. “Before the matter proceeds further, the applicant will be provided the opportunity to specify the nature of the requested amendments.”
The order sets clear timelines. The driver has 28 days from the date of the interim decision to take concrete steps if she wants to change the wording and scope of her complaint.
The respondents then have 14 days from receiving the amended materials to respond.
Then, the Tribunal will decide whether to grant or deny the applicant’s request to amend the Application after reviewing any Form 11 responses filed by the respondents,” the decision states.
Next steps in long‑running dispute
Once the amendment question is resolved – or if the driver does not move to amend within the 28‑day window – the case will shift into the more familiar track of a contested HRTO proceeding.
Only at that stage will MVT and Gill be required to formally answer the human rights allegations, and only later will the tribunal decide whether the case should be dismissed under section 45.1 or proceed to a hearing on the merits.
For now, the interim ruling signals that the tribunal is not prepared to treat the WSIB appeal as the last word on the driver’s claims of discrimination based on disability and sex – and that, nearly eight years after her application was first filed, the worker will get another chance to put her story before Ontario’s human rights system.
