The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision refusing to reconsider a default judgment.
The default judgment was issued after the applicant's former counsel failed to respond to Tribunal communications, despite the applicant having previously participated in the proceedings.
The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's reliance on a deeming rule to penalize the applicant for its lawyer's negligence was unreasonable, as it failed to conduct a contextual analysis.
The application was granted, the Tribunal's decisions were quashed, and a new hearing was ordered.