Once filed, your application enters a screening review. The HRTO asks whether the matter falls within its authority under the Ontario Human Rights Code and whether the application meets the procedural and substantive requirements.

If yes, your application is accepted and forwarded to the respondent. If not, the HRTO will explain what is missing or why the matter belongs elsewhere. In some cases, you can refile after correcting the issues, but only if you are still within the limitation period.

The respondent receives a copy of the application and has roughly 35 days to file a written response. The response addresses the allegations point by point, explains the respondent's version of events, and identifies any evidence or arguments they will rely on.

This response shapes the rest of the case. A sloppy response can lock in concessions that hurt later. For applicants, it is your first look at the defence you will need to answer.

Mediation at the HRTO is voluntary, confidential, and conducted with a neutral mediator provided by the tribunal. Both sides must agree to participate. If a settlement is reached, it is documented in writing and binding on both parties. If not, the matter proceeds to the next stage and nothing said in mediation can be used at a later hearing.

Many HRTO matters resolve here. Mediation is faster, less adversarial, and gives the parties more control over the outcome than a contested hearing.

If mediation does not resolve the matter, the file moves toward hearing. The pre-hearing conference is the bridge. A designated HRTO member leads a working session to clarify the issues, set timelines, agree on witnesses, and address procedural questions like document exchange.

This is also the last meaningful chance for settlement before hearing. Some cases resolve at the pre-hearing because seeing the issues laid out makes the cost of fighting more concrete.

HRTO hearings resemble court trials but are less formal. Each side presents its case through documents and witnesses, then cross-examines the other side's witnesses. Both make legal and factual arguments, often referencing precedents and the Human Rights Code. An HRTO adjudicator presides, controls the process, and ultimately decides the case.

The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The adjudicator decides what is more likely than not to have happened, not what is certain.

The adjudicator usually reserves the decision, meaning they review the evidence and arguments before issuing a written ruling. The decision sets out findings of fact, applies the Ontario Human Rights Code and relevant precedents, and concludes whether discrimination or harassment occurred on the balance of probabilities.

If the claim is upheld, the decision specifies remedies. These can include monetary compensation for lost income or injury to dignity, orders to stop the discriminatory practice, mandatory training, and policy changes. HRTO decisions are published and become part of the public record.

The HRTO does not have a formal appeal in the way appellate courts do. Instead, there are two routes. A request for reconsideration is filed back to the HRTO. It applies only where there has been a significant error in the decision or where genuinely new evidence has emerged. It is not a rerun of the case.

A judicial review is brought to the Divisional Court. It focuses on whether the HRTO's decision was reasonable and lawful, not on whether the court would have decided the facts differently. Both routes have tight deadlines and require careful legal arguments.