Petrykowski v. Federation of Law Societies of Canada, 2025 ONSC 2307

CITATION: Petrykowski v. Federation of Law Societies of Canada, 2025 ONSC 2307

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 587/24

DATE: 20250417

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: MAREK PETRYKOWSKI, Applicant

AND: FEDERATION OF LAW SOCIETIES OF CANADA, Respondent

BEFORE: Sachs, Gordon and Matheson JJ.

COUNSEL: Self-represented Applicant Colin Baxter and Abdalla Barqawi, for the Respondent Sabrina Fiacco, for the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

HEARD at Toronto: April 15, 2025

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “HRTO” or “Tribunal”) decision dated September 12, 2024 (the “Decision”). The Applicant had applied to the HRTO alleging that the Respondent engaged in constructive discrimination against him contrary to s. 11(1) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19. The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that the Applicant failed to connect his claims to any prohibited ground under the Code.

[2] The Applicant was born in Poland and immigrated to Canada. He obtained a law degree from a United Kingdom university through an online self-study program. The Applicant then applied to the respondent’s National Committee on Accreditation (“NCA”) for an assessment of his legal credentials. The NCA is responsible for assessing the foreign legal education credentials of applicants to law societies in Canadian common law jurisdictions.

[3] Since the Applicant’s law degree was obtained solely through online self-study, the NCA informed him that he would have to complete two further years of full-time, in class instruction before he could be accredited.

[4] The Applicant applied to the HRTO alleging that the Respondent had discriminated against him. He did not specify which prohibited ground he relied on for discrimination under the Code. The Tribunal notified the Applicant that his application could be dismissed for that reason. The Applicant responded, relying on place of origin, age and family status. The Applicant submitted that he was discriminated against because he was Polish, a mature student and because he had family obligations.

[5] The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that the Applicant failed to make a connection to any prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code. The Tribunal held that the Respondent’s policy about the mode of study was not discriminatory. The policy applied to all students regardless of their place of origin, age or family status. With respect to the Applicant’s submissions that the policy adversely affected him, the Tribunal sympathized with the Applicant but held that financial hardship was not a protected ground under the Code.

[6] The Applicant then sought judicial review.

[7] The Applicant submits that the Tribunal erred in law, was procedurally unfair, and its decision was unreasonable. The standard of this Court’s review of the Decision is reasonableness, except that for issues of procedural fairness, the Tribunal must provide the appropriate process.

[8] The Applicant submits that the Tribunal erred in law in not applying the correct test for adverse effect discrimination under s. 11(1) of the Code because the Tribunal did not decide all of the steps set out in that provision. This submission fails to recognize that under s. 11(1) there must be an allegation of discrimination on a prohibited ground. The Decision addressed that issue, setting out the applicable legal principles. The Tribunal noted that the Code only prohibits actions that discriminate based on enumerated grounds and explained that it does not have jurisdiction over general allegations of unfairness unrelated to the Code. In those circumstances, it was not necessary to proceed to decide the issues that would arise if there was jurisdiction.

[9] With respect to the prohibited grounds under the Code, the Applicant submits that mode of study is either a proxy for place of origin or should be treated as an analogous ground, relying on cases under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Applicant submits that he is the sole breadwinner in his household and it is not possible for him to complete in-classroom education. He submits that his degree would be accepted throughout the European Union.

[10] The Tribunal reasonably found that mode of study was not a protected ground under the Code. Unlike Charter litigation, the HRTO has no jurisdiction to identify analogous grounds under the Code: Stukanov v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2021 ONSC 262 (Div C.t), at para. 11.

[11] The Applicant submits that the Tribunal arbitrarily decided that his application was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. That is plainly not the case. The Decision addressed the relevant legal framework and provided its reasons for finding no jurisdiction.

[12] The Applicant submits that the process was unfair because it was conducted in writing. This Court has previously found that this streamlined, in writing process is not unfair: Wu v. Toronto Ombudsman, 2023 ONSC 6192, at paras. 40-41. Both the HRTO rules and this Court recognize that in an individual matter, a different process may be needed. However, this application does not raise issues that require a different process in order to be fair.

[13] The Applicant further submits that the Decision is procedurally unfair because he should have been given a more thorough explanation for the outcome, emphasizing the importance of the Decision to him. The Applicant relies on Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653. The Applicant submits that the reasons for decision are inadequate to show a coherent and logical line of reasoning that accounted for the relevant factual and legal context.

[14] In this case, the reasons do not raise a concern about procedural fairness. To the extent that the Applicant argues that the reasons are inadequate, this goes to reasonableness. Further, as set out in Vavilov, at para. 304, the adequacy of reasons is not “a stand-alone basis for quashing a decision”. The reasons must “be read together with the outcome and serve the purpose of showing whether the result falls within a range of possible outcomes”.

[15] In our view, the Tribunal gave reasons for decision that set out the applicable legal principles and engaged in a coherent and rational chain of analysis that is justified on the facts and applicable legal principles. The Applicant has not shown that the Decision is unreasonable.

[16] This application is dismissed with costs to the Respondent fixed at $1,000, all inclusive.

Sachs J.

Gordon J.

Matheson J.

Date: April 17, 2025