Huggins v. Huggins, 2026 HRTO 463 is a recent decision from the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) regarding a Request for Reconsideration (the “Request”) of an earlier Tribunal decision (the “Decision”). In the Decision the Tribunal dismissed an application alleging the Respondents had violated the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”).
The applicant who filed the Request provided written submissions that had been prepared by an online AI tool.
The Tribunal considered those submissions unpersuasive and the Request was dismissed.
Bow River Law practices employment law and human rights in Alberta. Although this is an Ontario decision and not binding in Alberta, it could be considered persuasive authority here.
Facts
The basis for the Decision was a lack of jurisdiction under s. 34(11) of the Code because the applicant had brought a separate civil proceeding for the same alleged infringement of his rights.
The applicant filed a Request within the required timelines identifying two bases on which the Decision be reconsidered:
(1) the initial decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; and
(2) other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
Along with the Request for Reconsideration the applicant submitted an attachment prepared by an online AI tool.
In the email accompanying the Request the applicant also wrote to the Tribunal, “stop wasting my time with your FBS decisions, this took me under 1 minute to dismantle with A.I.”
No other party elected to provide any written submissions.
Analysis/Conclusion
The Tribunal noted that there are 4 bases under Rule 26.5 of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Rules of Procedure on which the Tribunal could grant a Request for Reconsideration, including the 2 identified by the applicant.
However, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy and there is no right to have a decision reconsidered under Rule 26. Furthermore, reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity to re-argue the application.
The applicant’s AI-produced submissions consisted of 3 very similar analyses of the Decision. The Tribunal noted that it appeared the applicant had used the AI tool iteratively to produce submissions that the document described as “bulletproof”.
Unfortunately for the applicant, the submissions did not engage with the requirements for reconsideration in Rule 26.5. Instead, the submissions complained about various features of the Decision while entirely ignoring the reasons for the dismissal.
The Decision was based on s. 34(11) of the Code, which prohibits an application from continuing at the Tribunal where an applicant has commenced a civil proceeding on overlapping facts and issues against the same respondents.
After reviewing the details of the Request, the Decision, the law and applicable jurisprudence, the Tribunal found that the applicant’s submissions did not satisfy any of the criteria set out in Rule 26.5. The Tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to grant the Request and directed the Decision would stand as issued.
My Take
In any legal proceeding it is important to: (1) know what you need to prove or establish; and (2) give the decision-maker a basis to find that you have satisfied point (1).
This summary is not intended to discourage people from using AI. However, there will be inherent risk in offloading legal work to any AI program. Legal proceedings are often highly technical, and AI’s responses are not always accurate or reliable at this point. If the goal in this case was to succeed in the Request, the “bulletproof” AI submissions completely missed the mark by failing to address the reasons for the Decision or the requirements that would allow the Tribunal to have granted the Request.
In my experience that is not an uncommon outcome. Many clients who relied on AI are disappointed to discover that their claims are significantly weaker, or significantly smaller, than what they understood from AI summaries.
The applicant’s communications with the Tribunal likely didn’t help his position either. Ultimately, decision-makers are human. I cannot think of any situation where an applicant telling a decision-maker that their decisions are “FBS”, or any other form of BS, would make them more inclined to exercise their discretion to decide in the applicant’s favour.
This blog article should be considered legal information only, not legal advice.
