On May 6, 2022, the Tribunal introduced a pilot project under the Case Path Pilot Practice Direction regarding the process for considering complaints under s. 27(1) of the Human Rights Code [Case Path Pilot]. The Tribunal’s review of the Case Path Pilot took longer than anticipated as the Tribunal has worked to grow its resources and concentrate on its backlog strategy. In 2025, the Tribunal turned its focus to considering the process for the Tribunal’s administration of its discretion under s. 27(1) of the Code.
The Tribunal received input from the public about the Case Path Pilot. It also convened an Advisory Group of volunteers to provide input on feasible procedural options for exercising its dismissal power under s. 27(1). As part of its review process, the Tribunal prepared a Discussion Paper and met twice in 2026 with the Advisory Group. We are grateful to all who took the time to provide their input.
The Tribunal is now modifying its process for exercising its dismissal power effective May 1, 2026. The changes are responsive to the input we have received in the context of ongoing workload pressures and delay in the Tribunal’s complaint process. Delay is a significant issue for the public and the parties before the Tribunal. In this context, the Tribunal must continue to focus on the efficient use of its resources.
Section 27(1) plays a “gatekeeping function” for the Tribunal to safeguard against the time and expense of hearings where one is not warranted. In seeking input, we heard some support for returning to the Tribunal’s previous process in which dismissal applications were a “stage” in the Tribunal’s process and respondents could opt to file a dismissal application within a deadline following their response to the complaint and disclosure. That process resulted in a significant number of often resource-intensive applications, a significant portion of which were unsuccessful. In the context of significantly increased volume, workload, and delay, that process – as designed – did not promote a just and timely resolution of complaints.
We also heard that the Tribunal could better meet the purpose of s. 27(1) if, before the Tribunal determines whether to schedule submissions under s. 27(1), we had more information from respondents about their proposed dismissal applications. Further input was that the Tribunal could more clearly identify the factors it will consider in assigning a complaint to a case path. In response to this input, we have revised the Form 7.5 – Request to File Dismissal Application.
Under the new process, the Tribunal will set a deadline for a respondent to file a Form 7.5. The Tribunal will now include this deadline in its letter setting a deadline for disclosure. There is a Practice Direction about the transition to this new procedure. We have also added information for clarification in the new Form 7.5 of what the Tribunal considers.
We heard that it could be helpful if complainants had an opportunity to respond to a respondent’s request to make submissions under s. 27(1) of the Code. At this time the Tribunal will not be developing a process for complainants to provide submissions. The Tribunal will be able to assess the case path assignment based on the Form 7.5 together with the complaint and response, including any amendments.
The case path assignment process is intended to improve resource efficiency, and the parties should expect only a brief explanation for the assignment.
Our review of the Case Path Pilot showed that more dismissal applications succeeded when the Tribunal assigned the complaint to the submissions path than when respondents could file dismissal applications under the former rule 19. Under the new process, respondents will identify the scope of dismissal applications they want to file. However, the Tribunal maintains its discretion to seek submissions under s. 27(1) at any time in the complaint process.
As mentioned above, the Tribunal has issued a Practice Direction about the transition from the Case Path Pilot to the process made by amendment to the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Case Path Pilot is amended effective May 1, 2026, on a transitional basis, to identify its limited remaining application to some complaints.
Finally, we have heard some support for a summary hearing process where the Tribunal would determine if a complaint is justified without an oral hearing. Parties remain at liberty to request an alternative to an oral hearing under rule 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules. However, the balance of the Tribunal’s process review remains ongoing, and in that context, we hope to have capacity to examine further a formal process for summary hearings.
Emily Ohler K.C.
Chair
May 1, 2026