In James v. Inspirah Property Management Ltd.[1], the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”) found that applications cannot be brought by estate trustees. Instead, Estate Trustees are limited to maintaining applications that have already been commenced by a deceased.
Background
An estate trustee commenced an application before the HRTO on behalf of her deceased mother, alleging the respondents violated the deceased’s rights under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 (the “Code”).
In response, the HRTO considered whether an estate or estate trustee has standing to bring such an application before the tribunal.
Analysis
Section 34 of the Code sets out that a person or their defined representative may apply to the HRTO. The enumerated representatives do not include an estate trustee:
Application by person
34 (1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2.
[…]
Application on behalf of another
(5) A person or organization, other than the Commission, may apply on behalf of another person to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2 if the other person,
(a) would have been entitled to bring an application under subsection (1); and
(b) consents to the application.
Section 46 of the Code defines the term person, and similarly fails to reference an estate or estate trustee:
Definitions, general
46 In this Act,
[…]
“person” in addition to the extended meaning given it by Part VI (Interpretation) of the Legislation Act, 2006, includes an employment agency, an employers’ organization, an unincorporated association, a trade or occupational association, a trade union, a partnership, a municipality, a board of police commissioners established under the Police Act, being chapter 381 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, and a police service board established under the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019; (“personne”)
Turning to the extended definition of “person” as set out in Part VI, s.87 of the Legislation Act, 2006, SO 2006, c 21, Sch F,, the HRTO recognized that this definition merely provides for the inclusion of a corporation.[2]
In light of the aforementioned provisions failing to reference an “estate” or “estate trustee”, the HRTO then considered concurring language provided for in s.38(1) of the Trustee Act, RSO 1990, c T.23. that authorizes an executor or administrator to maintain an action for torts or injuries:
Actions for torts
Actions by executors and administrators for torts
38 (1) Except in cases of libel and slander, the executor or administrator of any deceased person may maintain an action for all torts or injuries to the person or to the property of the deceased in the same manner and with the same rights and remedies as the deceased would, if living, have been entitled to do, and the damages when recovered shall form part of the personal estate of the deceased; but, if death results from such injuries, no damages shall be allowed for the death or for the loss of the expectation of life, but this proviso is not in derogation of any rights conferred by Part V of the Family Law Act. (emphasis added)
Concluding Comments
Given the lack of language authorizing the HRTO to consider an application commenced by an estate trustee, the application was dismissed on the basis that estate trustees are only empowered to maintain applications commenced by a deceased prior to their death.
Notably, the within decision did not reference or consider Rule 9 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194 which authorizers an executor, administrator, or trustee to commence proceedings on behalf of an estate without joining beneficiaries as parties, except in limited situations:
Proceedings by or against Executor, Administrator or Trustee
General Rule
9.01 (1) A proceeding may be brought by or against an executor, administrator or trustee as representing an estate or trust and its beneficiaries without joining the beneficiaries as parties. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 9.01 (1).
Exceptions
(2) Subrule (1) does not apply to a proceeding,
(a) to establish or contest the validity of a will;
(b) for the interpretation of a will;
(c) to remove or replace an executor, administrator or trustee;
(d) against an executor, administrator or trustee for fraud or misconduct; or
(e) for the administration of an estate or the execution of a trust by the court. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 9.01 (2).
Regardless, the within decision highlights the paramount importance for rules and practice directions governing Ontario tribunals to explicitly set out the powers intended to be afforded to estate trustees.
Failing the inclusion of such language, there remains uncertainty about whether a deceased’s potential rights are restricted as a result of legislative intention or omission.
—
[1] James v. Inspirah Property Management Ltd., 2023 HRTO 1159.
[2] Legislation Act, 2006, SO 2006, c 21, Sch F, s 87.
Menu
Written by: WEL Partners
Posted on: June 26, 2024
Categories: Commentary, WEL Newsletter
In James v. Inspirah Property Management Ltd.[1], the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”) found that applications cannot be brought by estate trustees. Instead, Estate Trustees are limited to maintaining applications that have already been commenced by a deceased.
Background
An estate trustee commenced an application before the HRTO on behalf of her deceased mother, alleging the respondents violated the deceased’s rights under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 (the “Code”).
In response, the HRTO considered whether an estate or estate trustee has standing to bring such an application before the tribunal.
Analysis
Section 34 of the Code sets out that a person or their defined representative may apply to the HRTO. The enumerated representatives do not include an estate trustee:
Application by person
34 (1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2.
[…]
Application on behalf of another
(5) A person or organization, other than the Commission, may apply on behalf of another person to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2 if the other person,
(a) would have been entitled to bring an application under subsection (1); and
(b) consents to the application.
Section 46 of the Code defines the term person, and similarly fails to reference an estate or estate trustee:
Definitions, general
46 In this Act,
[…]
“person” in addition to the extended meaning given it by Part VI (Interpretation) of the Legislation Act, 2006, includes an employment agency, an employers’ organization, an unincorporated association, a trade or occupational association, a trade union, a partnership, a municipality, a board of police commissioners established under the Police Act, being chapter 381 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, and a police service board established under the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019; (“personne”)
Turning to the extended definition of “person” as set out in Part VI, s.87 of the Legislation Act, 2006, SO 2006, c 21, Sch F,, the HRTO recognized that this definition merely provides for the inclusion of a corporation.[2]
In light of the aforementioned provisions failing to reference an “estate” or “estate trustee”, the HRTO then considered concurring language provided for in s.38(1) of the Trustee Act, RSO 1990, c T.23. that authorizes an executor or administrator to maintain an action for torts or injuries:
Actions for torts
Actions by executors and administrators for torts
38 (1) Except in cases of libel and slander, the executor or administrator of any deceased person may maintain an action for all torts or injuries to the person or to the property of the deceased in the same manner and with the same rights and remedies as the deceased would, if living, have been entitled to do, and the damages when recovered shall form part of the personal estate of the deceased; but, if death results from such injuries, no damages shall be allowed for the death or for the loss of the expectation of life, but this proviso is not in derogation of any rights conferred by Part V of the Family Law Act. (emphasis added)
Concluding Comments
Given the lack of language authorizing the HRTO to consider an application commenced by an estate trustee, the application was dismissed on the basis that estate trustees are only empowered to maintain applications commenced by a deceased prior to their death.
Notably, the within decision did not reference or consider Rule 9 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194 which authorizers an executor, administrator, or trustee to commence proceedings on behalf of an estate without joining beneficiaries as parties, except in limited situations:
Proceedings by or against Executor, Administrator or Trustee
General Rule
9.01 (1) A proceeding may be brought by or against an executor, administrator or trustee as representing an estate or trust and its beneficiaries without joining the beneficiaries as parties. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 9.01 (1).
Exceptions
(2) Subrule (1) does not apply to a proceeding,
(a) to establish or contest the validity of a will;
(b) for the interpretation of a will;
(c) to remove or replace an executor, administrator or trustee;
(d) against an executor, administrator or trustee for fraud or misconduct; or
(e) for the administration of an estate or the execution of a trust by the court. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 9.01 (2).
Regardless, the within decision highlights the paramount importance for rules and practice directions governing Ontario tribunals to explicitly set out the powers intended to be afforded to estate trustees.
Failing the inclusion of such language, there remains uncertainty about whether a deceased’s potential rights are restricted as a result of legislative intention or omission.
—
[1] James v. Inspirah Property Management Ltd., 2023 HRTO 1159.
[2] Legislation Act, 2006, SO 2006, c 21, Sch F, s 87.
Author
View all posts