Regulators, including their tribunals, are subject to the Human Rights Code. However, the decisions of their tribunals are not subject to review by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).
In Fiorillo v College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2026 HRTO 123 (CanLII), a complainant requested an extension of time to make submissions to the complaints-screening committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. The committee refused because it had a statutory duty to dispose of complaints expeditiously. It should be noted that the complaints-screening committee does not conduct hearings. The complainant made a further complaint to the HRTO submitting that the refusal to grant an extension amounted to a failure to accommodate her disability.
The HRTO concluded it did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaint before it because of adjudicative immunity. It said:
The doctrine of adjudicative immunity is a legal principle that protects statutory decision-makers and bodies, and their adjudicators or decision-makers, from being sued or held personally liable for their decisions, including procedural decisions and orders. It ensures that the tribunals and adjudicators can act impartially without fear of lawsuits and claims, as long as their actions are within their statutory authority.
The HRTO also cited an earlier case that concluded such complaints amounted to a collateral attack on the decision of the complaints-screening committee of a health regulator. The proper route to challenge a decision of such a committee was to appeal it (where an appeal is available) or through judicial review.
The HRTO did not address the regulator’s argument that the statutory immunity provision related to decisions made in good faith served as a complete defence to the applicant’s claim for monetary damages.
This decision is significant because it limits the ability of individuals to subject a regulator to multiple parallel proceedings. Again, this decision does not prevent the complainant from raising human rights concerns through proper channels (i.e., to the committee itself and thereafter via judicial review or statutory appeal). Furthermore, the decision does not address policy or operational decisions made by regulators (e.g., access to regulatory communications or facilities).
