In February 2026, Ontario’s Divisional Court released its decision in Bokhari v. Top Medical Transportation Services, which highlights the importance of ensuring that human rights applicants have their cases heard.
Ali Bokhari, an ambulance driver, was terminated after he requested time off work to recover from a broken ankle. He filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario alleging discrimination based on disability. The Ontario Human Rights Code provides protection against discrimination on disability, including any degree of physical disability with respect to employment. The Tribunal dismissed his application at an early stage, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction because Mr. Bokhari’s injury did not meet the definition of a disability. As a result, Mr. Bokhari was denied the opportunity to present his case at an oral hearing.
Mr. Bokhari asked the Divisional Court to review the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss his application. The Ontario Human Rights Commission intervened and argued that the Tribunal’s approach to jurisdiction and disability is contrary to established human rights principles and law, and that dismissing applications at early stages creates systemic barriers, particularly for vulnerable human rights applicants.
The Divisional Court ruled that the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss Mr. Bokhari’s application was unreasonable. The Court found that the issue of whether Mr. Bokhari had a disability was not an issue of jurisdiction and should have been addressed on its merits at an oral hearing.
In reversing the Tribunal’s decision, the Court found that:
- The Tribunal’s practice of dismissing applications in writing based on jurisdiction, when it is actually deciding an application based on its merits, risks depriving people of the Human Rights Code’s protection;
- The Tribunal improperly raised the standard for deciding whether something is in its jurisdiction from the “plain and obvious” test to a “balance of probabilities” test; and
- The Tribunal’s analysis of whether Mr. Bokhari’s ankle injury was a disability is contrary to established human rights law, which requires looking not only at physical limitations, but also the perceptions and barriers that someone may face.
The Court concluded that Mr. Bokhari’s application was within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and sent it back to the Tribunal to be heard by a different adjudicator.