Court File and Parties

CITATION: Nyaberi v. TD Insurance, 2026 ONSC 1678

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-25-00000258-00JR

DATE: 20260323

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: NOBERT NYABERI, Applicant

AND:

TD INSURANCE and TD STAFF LEGAL, Respondents

BEFORE: Justices Matheson, O’Brien and Mandhane

COUNSEL: Norbert Nyaberi, Self-Represented

Andrea Morin and Tala Khoury, Counsel for TD Insurance and TD Staff Legal

Mindy Noble, Counsel for Human Rights Tribunal

HEARD at Toronto: March 13, 2026

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dated December 17, 2024.

[2] The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle collision on July 13, 2013. The applicant’s vehicle collided with the vehicle of a person who was insured by the respondent, TD Insurance. The applicant started a personal injury action against the insured person. TD Insurance appointed TD Insurance Staff Legal to represent the insured person and defend the action.

[3] In 2023, the applicant filed an application with the Tribunal alleging the respondents discriminated against him contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, on the grounds of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, and ethnic origin, by their conduct in defending the action.

[4] After receiving the respondents’ response to the application before the Tribunal and the applicant’s reply, the Tribunal requested submissions on several jurisdictional issues. These included the question of whether the application alleged discrimination with respect to any of the social areas defined by the Code, which are: services, goods and facilities, accommodation, contracts, employment and membership in vocational associations. After receiving submissions from the parties, on December 17, 2024, the Tribunal issued its decision dismissing the application for jurisdictional reasons. It concluded the relationship between the parties was not in the social areas covered by the Code since their only relationship was as opposing parties in the personal injury action.

[5] The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant’s request to reconsider its original decision. It found the applicant was attempting to reformulate and reargue his case. The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not provide any basis that would justify reconsideration.

[6] In this court, the applicant submits the Tribunal procedure was unfair. He also submits that the Tribunal reached its decision without applying the law, evidence, or factual findings and that his rights under s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated.

[7] The standard of review for the Tribunal’s decision is reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, at paras. 16-17; Ontario (Health) v Association of Ontario Midwives, 2022 ONCA 458, at para 83.

[8] The decision was reasonable. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to specified social areas set out in sections 1 to 6 of the Code. This court has previously confirmed the relationship between a lawyer and opposing party is not covered by the Code: Zheng v. G4S Secure Solutions (Canada) Ltd., 2022 ONSC 93, at para. 10. The Tribunal was not required to look further into the specific conduct of the parties because, as a threshold matter, it did not have jurisdiction over the dispute. There is no basis to interfere in the Tribunal’s decision on the ground of failure to apply the law, evidence, or facts.

[9] The applicant did not raise the Charter before the Tribunal and has not explained how s. 15 of the Charter could apply to his relationship with the respondents, who are not public entities. The Charter applies only to the actions of the legislative, executive and administrative branches of government: RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., [1986], 1986 5 (SCC), 2 S.C.R. 573, at para. 33. The applicant also has not explained why the Tribunal should have applied the Charter in circumstances where it otherwise did not have jurisdiction over his relationship with the respondents. This ground of review is dismissed.

[10] The applicant has raised various minor errors made or steps taken by the Tribunal during its process. He alleges, for example, that the Tribunal erred in correspondence when it indicated the date on which the Tribunal application was filed by stating the incorrect date, that the Tribunal improperly granted the respondents an extension of time to file their responding submissions, and that the Tribunal erred by amending the decision to correct the names of counsel for the respondents without his consent.

[11] These submissions and the other similar submissions the applicant has raised do not constitute breaches of procedural fairness. Rights to procedural fairness are aimed at ensuring individuals affected by a proceeding have the right to be heard and the opportunity to present their case in a manner appropriate to the context of the decision: Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 699 (SCC), [1999] 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, at para. 28. Subsection 48(3) of the Code expressly provides that the failure on the part of the Tribunal to comply with the practices and procedures under its rules or to exercise its discretion in a particular manner under the rules are not a ground for setting aside a decision of the Tribunal “unless the failure or exercise of discretion caused a substantial wrong which affected the final disposition of the matter.”

[12] To the extent the Tribunal referenced the incorrect date for the application, this is a minor mistake that did not impact procedural fairness. It was also appropriate for the Tribunal to allow counsel additional time to file their materials. To do so was well within the Tribunal’s discretion. The applicant has not demonstrated any unfairness or prejudice resulting from the extension. The Tribunal is also entitled to correct clerical errors, such as the name of counsel on a decision, without consent. These minor procedural issues and errors did not cause unfairness. They also did not cause “a substantial wrong” that “affected the final disposition of the matter” under s. 48(3) of the Code.

[13] There was also no unfairness in allowing the Tribunal to file its factum on the application in this court, as alleged by the applicant in his oral submissions. The applicant was served with the factum on January 30, 2026, well in advance of the court hearing. Although the front page of the Tribunal’s factum was incorrectly dated January 30, 2025, this typographical error had no impact on the proceeding and caused the applicant no prejudice.

[14] The application is dismissed. The respondents, TD Insurance and TD Legal Staff are the successful parties and entitled to their costs. However, their claimed partial indemnity costs of over $19,000 are excessive. Costs are fixed in the amount of $2,000 all-inclusive, payable by the applicant to TD Insurance and TD Legal Staff.

Matheson J.

_____________________ O’Brien J.

_____________________ Mandhane J.

Released: March 23, 2026