Royal LePage v. HRTO, 2025 ONSC 6276
In June 2018, an application was filed alleging discrimination in employment. After the respondent, Royal LePage, filed a response to the application, the respondent’s lawyer left the firm but failed to notify the HRTO. However, another lawyer at the same firm took over the file and attended a mediation at the Tribunal in April 2019. This lawyer also subsequently left the firm and did not notify the HRTO.
The HRTO took no further steps on the file until September 2022, when the HRTO wrote to the parties offering another mediation. However, the Tribunal did not notify Royal LePage directly, instead delivering its notice only to the first lawyer for Royal LePage who was no longer retained on the file. As a result, the respondents were unaware of the offer and did not respond.
On November 10, 2022, the Tribunal again sent a notice to the first lawyer for the respondent, who had not been retained on the file since December 2018, advising that if Royal LePage did not respond to the letter within 30 days, the HRTO could proceed to make a finding against it without further notice. Again, the HRTO did not notify Royal LePage directly.
In September 2023, the Tribunal issued a decision declaring Royal LePage in default. The Tribunal did not send a copy of the decision to Royal LePage. Without further notice to Royal LePage the Tribunal held a default hearing of the merits of the application on April 23, 2024 and issued its Decision on October 2024, finding that Royal LePage had violated the Code and ordering substantial damages.
Royal LePage filed a request for reconsideration which was denied notwithstanding the fact that neither Royal LePage, nor a lawyer representing Royal LePage, had received actual notice of the mediation offer. In denying the request for reconsideration, the adjudicator relied on a HRTO rule that provides that that clients who have a lawyer, and who direct that correspondence is to be sent to their lawyer, are “deemed” to have notice of that correspondence
The Divisional Court quashed the HRTO decisions as unreasonable, finding that the failure of Royal LePage to respond to two emails could not, in the entire context, support a conclusion that Royal LePage had abandoned its intention to defend its position as evidenced by its formal response and its attendance at the first mediation. Given that the responsibility for the error lay with the lawyers who had failed to give the HRTO notice that they were no longer retained, the dismissal was unreasonable.