You Can’t Try That Here: The HRTO Says No to Forum Shopping

By Jessica Hoffman

In a recent decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), Lengyel v Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1031 (2025 HRTO 1630), the HRTO again reminds litigants that they cannot raise the same issue in more than one forum.

Ms. Lengyel, a unit owner, alleged that she was discriminated against by the condominium corporation. The condominium refused to allow her to permanently park a second vehicle in an accessible visitor parking space that she claimed was necessary because of a disability.

This dispute began at the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) when the condominium initiated an application against Ms. Lengyel for breaching the condominium’s parking rules (see MTCC 1031 v Lengyel (2025 ONCAT 26)). The CAT found that Ms. Lengyel was in breach of the parking rules and ordered her to comply.

Ms. Lengyel then started an HRTO application against the condominium, alleging that the condominium corporation discriminated against her by refusing to allow her to park her second vehicle in an accessible visitor parking space.

HRTO’s Decision

The HRTO dismissed Ms. Lengyel’s application on two grounds:

1. Lack of Jurisdiction Due to Concurrent Civil Proceedings

Under subsection 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, the HRTO is barred from hearing applications when a civil proceeding involving the same facts is ongoing. The HRTO found that a 2024 Notice of Action filed by Ms. Lengyel in the Superior Court encompassed the same dispute and allegations as in her HRTO application. As this civil proceeding was still active, the HRTO could not hear the application.

1. Substance Already Addressed by Another Tribunal

Even without the civil proceedings referred to above, the HRTO stated it would have dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, as another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application. The CAT had already ruled on the parking dispute, including consideration of Ms. Lengyel’s disability-related accommodation claims. The HRTO confirmed that the CAT had jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code and had provided a fair hearing.

Key Takeaways

The Lengyel decision emphasizes that disputes cannot be initiated across multiple legal forums.

The HRTO will defer to subsection 34(11) to prevent duplicative litigation. This case also highlights the CAT’s jurisdiction to deal with cases that involve human rights considerations. An applicant who starts proceedings at the HRTO will be unsuccessful if it is merely a reframing of the same facts and legal issues when it has already been dealt with in a different forum.