CITATION: Laho v. Metro Ontario Inc., 2025 ONSC 1975
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 403/24
DATE: 20250403
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Backhouse, Lococo and Mew JJ.
BETWEEN:
EUGENE LAHO
Applicant
– AND –
METRO ONTARIO INC., UNIFOR LOCAL 414 and HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
Respondents
Self-represented
Lesley A. Campbell, for the Respondent, Metro Ontario Inc.
Maija-Lisa Robinson for the Respondent, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
HEARD at Toronto by video conference: March 24, 2025
Backhouse J.
Overview
[1] Mr. Laho seeks judicial review of two decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal” or “HRTO”). He has also brought three motions seeking, among other things, to have the hearing adjourned and the proceedings dismissed and raises issues of procedural unfairness at the Divisional Court.
[2] The HRTO’s first decision dated June 19, 2024, reported at 2024 HRTO 853 (the “Decision”), dismissed Mr. Laho’s application alleging employer discrimination and reprisal against the respondent Metro Ontario Inc. (“Metro”), contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 (the “Code”). The Tribunal dismissed Mr. Laho’s application on the grounds that it was an abuse of process. The second decision, dated July 11, 2024, reported at 2024 HRTO 980 (the “Reconsideration Decision”) dismissed Mr. Laho’s request for reconsideration for failing to satisfy any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26 of the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure for applications under the Code. Mr. Laho’s judicial review application seeks an order quashing these decisions and for this Court to substitute a decision as it sees fit.
[3] For the reasons set out below, Mr. Laho’s motions, his claims of procedural unfairness and his judicial review application are dismissed.
Court’s Jurisdiction
[4] This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to ss. 2(1) and 6(1) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1.
Standard of Review
[5] In Ontario (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care) v. Assn. of Ontario Midwives, 2022 ONCA 458, 161 O.R. (3d) 561, at paras. 42-68, the Court of Appeal clarified that reasonableness review applies to the “patently unreasonable” standard set out in s. 45.8 of the Code.
[6] Regarding breaches of procedural fairness, this Court must determine whether the requisite level of procedural fairness was granted by applying the factors set out in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817.
Background
[7] Mr. Laho is a former employee of Metro who worked as a part-time deli clerk at one of its stores from July 2018 to March 2020, at which time he went on medical leave before ultimately resigning. He filed his HRTO application on April 20, 2020, alleging that Metro discriminated against him on the basis of record of offences and reprisal. He sought damages of $600,000.
[8] The nature of Mr. Laho’s discrimination claim was unclear. Part of his allegation was that Metro treated him unfairly and overworked him such that he developed carpal tunnel syndrome, epicondylitis, and cardiac issues. However, as the Tribunal noted, this has nothing to do with record of offences or reprisal, and nothing else in his application supported these specific claims.
[9] The other respondent in this case, Unifor Local 414, is the exclusive bargaining agent for select employees that work at Metro grocery stores, including Mr. Laho while he was employed there. Mr. Laho seems to allege that Unifor did nothing to prevent Metro from abusing him and did nothing to enforce its collective agreement. Unifor did not participate in this proceeding.
Procedural History in the Divisional Court
[10] Since issuing his judicial review application to the Divisional Court, Mr. Laho launched no less than 15 motions in this Court in the course of three and a half months. He has filed 6,453 pages of documents on Case Center in support of his application and motions. This does not include the proceedings before the HRTO, the record for which exceeds 3,100 pages. In an effort to accommodate Mr. Laho, deal with his motions and numerous emails and get his application to a hearing, three separate case management judges of this court have issued a total of 20 directions and one order. By direction dated December 20, 2024, the hearing date for Mr Laho’s judicial review application was scheduled for March 24, 2024 with a case conference to precede it on February 3, 2025.
[11] Mr. Laho failed to attend the case conference, although he had been previously advised in a direction that if he declined to attend, it would proceed in his absence and that directions may be made in his absence. Justice Nakatsuru gave a direction at the February 3, 2025 case conference that the hearing date of March 24, 2025 would proceed and confirmed that an interpreter would be present. Mr. Laho’s request to amend his factum was granted on consent.
[12] Ten days before the hearing date of the application, on March 14, 2025, Mr. Laho filed three more motions in addition to the 12 motions he had already filed to that point: (a) a motion for adjournment of the March 24, 2025 hearing; (b) a motion for judicial recusal of the case management Judges Myers, Nakatsuru, and Corbett who had made Directions and an Order in relation to his matter; and (c) a motion for a stay of proceedings.
[13] Justices Nakatsuru and Corbett both directed that these three motions be returnable before the panel on March 24, 2025 and that Mr. Laho may make arguments about procedural relief and accommodation requests at that time. However, Mr. Laho was advised that if the court rejects his motions, he must be prepared to proceed with the underlying case on the merits.
[14] In several further court directions responding to emails from Mr. Laho, Justice Corbett reiterated that Mr. Laho’s three motions and accommodations requests will be adjourned to the panel to be addressed as it considers appropriate, but Mr. Laho should understand that if the panel does not grant them, the case may proceed for argument on the merits as previously directed. Corbett J. added: “So that it is crystal clear to all parties, including Mr. Laho: the hearing next week shall proceed as scheduled, and Mr. Laho may raise his concerns with the process followed in this court with the panel.”
[15] At the hearing on March 24, 2025, the Panel again advised Mr. Laho that they would hear the three motions described above and any other submissions he wished to make about procedural unfairness of this court but that this was his opportunity to make his submissions on his judicial review application of HRTO’s Decision and the Reconsideration Decision.
[16] The Panel proceeded to hear Mr. Laho’s submissions on the three motions and procedural unfairness. Following Mr. Laho’s submissions, the Panel ordered that the motions and procedural unfairness arguments were dismissed with reasons to follow. The reasons are set out below.
The three motions and procedural unfairness concerns
(1) Motion for adjournment of the March 24, 2025 hearing due to procedural unfairness
[17] Mr. Laho asserts that the March 24, 2025 hearing date should be adjourned due to procedural unfairness including unexplained removal of motions from the judicial review proceeding, failure to provide notice or reasons and a lack of procedural accommodation. He submits that Justice Corbett’s direction limiting his motions to only three on the date scheduled for the hearing of the application constitutes a violation of his rights.
[18] An example of the kind of procedural unfairness Mr. Laho alleges is the striking out as parties to his judicial review application the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario, the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission. None were parties to the decisions of the Tribunal’s Decisions under review. None of these parties were decision makers whose decisions are under review.
[19] The Registrar of the Divisional court gave notice to Mr. Laho under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 that the court was considering dismissing his claims against these parties. The notice advised Mr. Laho that he could make submissions. Mr Laho did make submissions that when he made his request for reconsideration of the dismissal of his complaint to the HRTO, he asked the Integrity Commissioner and Human Rights Commissioner to intercede to protect his rights and they refused. He submitted that their refusal to become involved in the overturning of his complaint was a violation of the Charter[^1] and other obligations upon them.
[20] Justice Myers in an order dated August 27, 2024 found that Mr. Laho had improperly named and therefore struck out as parties the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario, the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission.
[21] Mr. Laho then filed an additional notice of application for judicial review seeking to quash Justice Myers’ decision and a motion to stay all ongoing proceedings based on what he submitted was an abuse of process of Justice Myers and of Justice Nakatsuru (who had issued a scheduling direction). He further sought to have Justice Myers and Nakatsuru recused for judicial bias.
[22] Mr. Laho was advised by a direction of Justice Corbett of the proper procedure to follow with respect to Justice Myers’ order and Justice Nakatsuru’s direction. Justice Corbett directed that the decision of Myers J. is a final order of the Divisional Court and may not be reviewed by the Divisional Court but could be appealed to the Court of Appeal (with leave as the deadline had expired). Corbett J. directed the registrar not to accept Mr. Laho’s application to judicially review Justice Myers’ order and Justice Nakatsuru’s direction but without prejudice to Mr. Laho taking steps to pursue a motion to review Nakatsuru J’s directions before a panel of the Divisional Court or to any steps he may take with respect to Myers J.’s decision to the Court of Appeal.
[23] Mr. Laho has employed the practice in the Divisional Court of bringing motions with manifestly no merit (e.g. to consolidate his judicial review application with his previously dismissed small claims court matter against Unifor; to adjourn the hearing date because he required time to prepare his submissions for all his motions; to stay proceedings while his motion to transfer proceedings to Ottawa Divisional Court was pending; to stay proceedings pending a review by the Supreme Court of Canada in regard to which he was advised in a direction that filing a motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada does not stay ongoing proceedings in the Divisional Court). When directions are issued by the court with respect to these meritless motions, he takes the position that directions are not legally binding on him and that by not scheduling the motions for full argument, he has been denied procedural unfairness.
[24] A review of this file establishes that Mr. Laho has received the accommodations listed in paragraph 9 of his factum filed in support of his March 14, 2025 motions, including not requiring him to make personal appearances but proceeding by video conference, communicating with the court office by email, extra time to meet timelines, extra breaks when required, the right to amend his factum up to the date of hearing and an interpreter being provided (although when he appeared before this panel with an interpreter on March 24, 2025, he did not to use him beyond the first few minutes and managed well in English.)
[25] Despite all of this, Mr. Laho complains that he has been denied his procedural fairness rights, that there has been systemic racism, he has been denied accommodation and that his human rights have been violated. He relied on alleged procedural unfairness and his supplementary judicial review application not being accepted by the court as a reason for not attending the February 3, 2025 case management conference where an interpreter and breaks had been set up in advance to accommodate him.
[26] The court has the right and the obligation to control its own process. I find no denial of procedural fairness or denial of accommodation. There is no merit to this motion. It is dismissed.
(2 ) Should this court grant the applicant’s motion to recuse Corbett, Nakatsuru, and Myers JJ. on the grounds that they have demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias?
[27] A review of the case management directions in this matter establish that the case management judges have met the obligation to accommodate Mr. Laho and to accord him procedural fairness while at the same time attempting to balance scarce judicial resources and to move Mr. Laho’s application onto a hearing. An informed person viewing the matter realistically and practically would not conclude that there was reasonable apprehension of bias of these judges. Moreover, none of these judges were assigned to the panel hearing the judicial review application.
[28] This motion is dismissed.
(3) Should this court grant the applicant’s motion to stay proceedings pending determination of his applications to the Federal Court of Canada and Supreme Court of Canada?
[29] Mr. Laho submits there are significant constitutional and procedural fairness issues pending before the Supreme Court of Canada and Federal Court of Canada arising from his filings (Motion for Judicial Intervention of SCC; Application for Leave to appeal to SCC; Motion for expedited Review and Emergency stay; and Notice of Constitutional Question).
[30] Mr. Laho states that the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada refused to process his various filings and he has initiated a mandamus application at the Federal Court seeking to compel the Registrar of the Supreme Court to process his filings He argued irreparable harm if the March 24, 2025 hearing proceeded and that the balance of convenience favours granting a stay of the March 24, 2025 hearing before this court.
[31] Justice Corbett’s March 5, 2025 direction advised Mr. Laho that filing a motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada does not stay ongoing proceedings in the Divisional Court. Corbett J further directed that the proceedings in the Divisional Court shall continue as directed. In response to further emails from Mr. Laho, Justice Corbett issued a further direction on March 10, 2025, advising that filing a motion for an emergency stay with the Supreme Court does not stay the process in Divisional Court unless and until the Supreme Court actually grants Mr. Laho’s motion.
[32] Mr. Laho’s attempted filings in the Supreme Court and in the Federal Court are not a basis to stay or adjourn the scheduled hearing of his judicial review application. This motion is dismissed.
Judicial Review Application
[33] Upon being advised that his motions and procedural fairness arguments were dismissed and that the panel would proceed to hear his judicial review application, Mr. Laho purported to be taken by surprise and to have understood that only the motions were to be heard at this time. He maintained this position even when Justice Corbett ‘s clear directions advising him that the hearing of his judicial review application would proceed on March 24, 2025 and his replies were brought to his attention. He then submitted that the directions did not constitute orders or endorsements and were therefore not binding legally. He made no further submissions on his judicial review application and he withdrew from the hearing by disconnecting from the videoconference.
[34] The panel went on to consider Mr. Laho’s judicial review application and to hear submissions from Metro.
Was the Decision Unreasonable?
[35] In determining whether the Decision to dismiss for abuse of process is unreasonable, it is necessary to consider the procedural history at the HRTO, which shows Mr. Laho employing tactics similar to those he used in the Divisional Court.
Procedural History at the HRTO
[36] Immediately after filing his application, Mr. Laho began sending the Tribunal and all other parties copious supporting documents and additional submissions in support of his claim. In between the initial filing of his application and the eventual hearing, he filed submissions or documents with the Tribunal approximately 90 times. He also copied the Tribunal on all communications he believed to be related to his case. The Tribunal wrote a letter to Mr. Laho on June 18, 2020, asking that he cease sending such excessive documentation, but he continued to do so.
[37] The Tribunal issued 3 Case Assessment Directions (“CAD”) to Mr. Laho. Mr. Laho was found not to comply with the first two CADs. The Tribunal was concerned about whether Mr. Laho’s claim carried any chance of success and, on December 5, 2023, issued a third CAD directing that a combined summary and preliminary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the Tribunal should dismiss all or part of the application on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of success and/or for abuse of process.
[38] The preliminary hearing was held on June 11, 2024, by videoconference, of whether the application ought to be dismissed based on abuse of process concerns. The applicant was self-represented and was provided an Albanian interpreter. On consent, the Tribunal allowed Mr. Laho to testify and give evidence about the abuse of process issue despite his failure to serve a witness statement in advance of the hearing, as required by the Tribunal’s rules.
[39] In dismissing Mr. Laho’s application on the basis of his abuse of process, the Tribunal found that his repeated failures to comply with Tribunal directions thwarted the Tribunal’s process and made it difficult for his application to move forward, thus tying up significant time and resources. It also dismissed Mr. Laho’s various attempts to explain his conduct. At para. 118, the Decision states:
[118] The applicant asserts that lack of proficiency in the English language, health issues, and lack of help, were the reasons why the applicant misunderstood the Tribunal’s directions. However, the applicant has a good deal of experience with Applications before this Tribunal, and according to their own evidence was pursuing 26 other legal matters. The Tribunal provided an interpreter for the hearing when it was requested, and granted the applicant’s accommodation requests with only minor exceptions and limits. The Tribunal’s website and the Application form, which the applicant has used many times, direct applicants to the HRLSC for free assistance and legal services, and the Tribunal also referred the applicant to the HRLSC by email on March 24, 2024. The Notice of Videoconference Combined Summary and Preliminary Hearing also directed the applicant to the HRLSC. When the applicant did not comply with the Tribunal’s directions, they were given explanations by the Tribunal and additional opportunities to comply. In my view the Tribunal at all times was in full compliance with the Canadian Judicial Council’s Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons. For these reasons I am not persuaded that the applicant’s repeated failure to comply with the Tribunal’s directions was due to the reasons asserted by the applicant. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as an abuse of process.
[40] After the Tribunal reviewed Mr. Laho’s HRTO application including the nearly 90 submissions and documents he sent after it was initially filed and his repeated failure to abide by CADs, it dismissed his claim based on abuse of process. The Tribunal is a custodian of scarce public resources and found that Mr. Laho repeatedly thwarted its process taking up time and resources.
[41] The Tribunal expressly turned its mind to Mr. Laho’s excuse and explanation for his conduct, which effectively amounted to claims that he did not understand the Tribunal’s directions. However, the Tribunal did not find this compelling given Mr. Laho’s familiarity and experience with HRTO applications and procedure. This was a reasonable conclusion to make. The Tribunal’s reasoning presented an internally coherent chain of analysis and was justified. The Decision was not unreasonable.
Was the Reconsideration Decision unreasonable?
[42] Reconsideration under r. 26.5 of the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure is a discretionary remedy and is not an opportunity for parties to change the way they present their case. An applicant can successfully request reconsideration by pointing to new and potentially determinative facts unavailable earlier, by identifying conflicts with established jurisprudence, by showing that they did not receive proper notice, or by convincing the Tribunal that other factors outweigh the public’s interest in the finality of decisions. While Mr. Laho argued under this last exception, this is a discretionary decision and deference is owed to the Tribunal member’s expertise. The Reconsideration Decision is not unreasonable.
Other Issues Raised in the Application for Judicial Review
Did the HRTO deny Mr. Laho procedural fairness by providing a biased decision-maker?
[43] There is no merit to Mr. Laho’s argument that it was a violation of procedural fairness for Adjudicator Inbar to decide her own recusal request. The threshold to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias is very high and there is a strong presumption of judicial impartiality. The Adjudicator correctly identified the legal test for reasonable apprehension and applied it properly. When the Adjudicator instructed Mr. Laho to cease filing excessive submissions and supporting documents to the Tribunal, this did not exhibit bias. Nor was it biased to adjourn the hearing of his Notice of Constitutional Question and other relief sought to the summary hearing. The Adjudicator has wide latitude and was entitled to control the process before the Tribunal. Moreover, it is well established that by itself, an adverse decision does not rebut the strong presumption of impartiality. Reasonable apprehension of bias is not established simply because the Adjudicator dismissed a number of Mr. Laho’s requests nor does this raise concerns about discrimination, transparency, disregard of human rights, and systemic bias. This claim is dismissed.
Was it procedural unfair to disregard Mr. Laho’s Notice of Constitutional Question and to refuse to add Unifor as a respondent to the application?
[44] Mr. Laho submits that it was unfair that his request to amend his application to name Unifor as a respondent was effectively dismissed. He had a significant claim against Unifor and should have had the opportunity to do so. It was also unfair to dismiss the Notice of Constitutional Question (“NCQ”) because it prevented Mr. Laho from raising the broader constitutional implications of his case, including his alleged Charter violations and systemic discrimination.
[45] There is no merit to these arguments. It was reasonable for the Tribunal to proceed with the preliminary hearing before having to determine the merits of Mr. Laho’s NCQ or to add Unifor as a respondent to the HRTO application. The Tribunal did not dismiss or ignore Mr. Laho’s requests but simply determined the order in which they should be addressed.
[46] It was well within the Tribunal’s rights to proceed with the preliminary hearing pursuant to r. 13.1 of the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure while adjourning the summary hearing portion. Section 41 of the Code further provides the Tribunal with wide latitude to adopt practices and procedures to facilitate a fair and expeditious resolution on the merits. The Tribunal did so reasonably in this case.
Did the Tribunal breach the duty of procedural fairness and/or violate Mr. Laho’s Charter rights in determining his accommodations request?
[47] Mr. Laho submits he has documented disabilities and, despite this, the HRTO repeatedly denied reasonable accommodation to interpretation services, “accessible filing formats”, and “procedural adjustments” violating his rights under ss. 7, 12, 14, and 15 of the Charter; as well as ss. 1, 2, 17, and 19 under the Code. He further states that the HRTO failed to comply with Ontario Human Rights Commission Policy on ableism, which obligates proactive measures to ensure equitable participation for people with disabilities and protects them from discrimination, harassment, reprisal, and violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1.
[48] There is no merit to this argument. The Tribunal granted Mr. Laho numerous accommodation requests, including permitting him to testify at the preliminary hearing despite his not following the Tribunal rules. Mr. Laho’s accommodations requests were largely granted subject to reasonable and logical caveats. It is disingenuous for Mr. Laho to allege that he was denied interpretation services. Mr. Laho failed to specify which language he needed interpretation services in and did not initially respond to requests to provide this information. Once Mr. Laho identified what type of interpreter he was requesting, one was provided for the hearing.
Conclusion
[49] The application is dismissed. As Metro and the HRTO do not seek costs of this application, none are awarded.
_____________________________________ Backhouse J.
I agree: _____________________________________ Lococo J.
I agree: _____________________________________ Mew J.
Released: April 3, 2025
CITATION: Laho v. Metro Ontario Inc., 2025 ONSC 1975
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 403/24
DATE: 20250403
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Backhouse, Lococo and Mew JJ.
BETWEEN:
EUGENE LAHO
Applicant
– AND –
METRO ONTARIO INC., UNIFOR LOCAL 414 and HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
Respondents
REASONS FOR DECISION
Backhouse J.
Released: April 3, 2025
[^1]: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11.