Journey · Stage 2 · Rules 1A and 13; Code s.34
Information from the public record, not legal advice. Corpus figures: 52 decisions, 37 matters, one Ontario police service, 2011–2026. Province-wide figures credited to Tribunal Watch Ontario.
What this stage is
Before any respondent answers, the Tribunal reads your application and decides whether it can proceed at all. This happens on paper. You will not be in a room. Nobody testifies. Applications end here for three main reasons: filed late (s.34), no connection pleaded between the events and a protected ground ("no nexus"), or outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
In our corpus, screening and timeliness together ended 11 of 37 matters — 30% — before anyone weighed any evidence. Province-wide it is starker: Tribunal Watch Ontario's review of the Tribunal's own reports found 96–97% of all final decisions in 2023/24 were jurisdictional or procedural dismissals without a hearing.
The test, in plain terms
At screening the question is not "will you win." It is: taking everything you wrote as true, could it amount to discrimination? You do not need evidence attached. You need facts pleaded. The distinction that matters:
A conclusion: "Police racially profiled me." A fact: "I was stopped, asked for ID, and searched. The two white men walking with me were not spoken to."
The first, alone, fails screening. The second survives it, because if true it connects treatment to race. Every event in your application should answer: what happened, when, who did it, and what makes it about a protected ground rather than bad luck or general unfairness. The Tribunal is not a general fairness watchdog — conduct that is rude, incompetent, or even unlawful is not discrimination unless a ground is a factor in it.
What the record shows
If the Tribunal thinks your application might have a case buried in confusion, it may issue a Case Assessment Direction asking you to clarify — usually once, usually with a page limit. Treat that as the emergency it is: the corpus shows applicants who missed the point of the request, or answered with volume instead of clarity, were dismissed. See Summary procedures for how to answer tribunal directions.
Representation changes survival at this gate more than at any other. In our corpus, 89% of represented matters survived jurisdictional screening; 39% of unrepresented matters did (11 of 28). Counting every procedural gate together — screening, deadlines, abandonment — 89% of represented matters were still standing, against 18% of unrepresented ones. Two honest caveats travel with that number: lawyers choose cases they judge viable, so some of the gap is case strength rather than lawyering; and nine represented matters is a small sample. The direction, however, holds at every gate we measured. See Getting help.
What we can't tell you
The screen-out rate for all applications — how many never produce any published decision — is not published anywhere. Our request for disposition-category data is in preparation. FOI Tracker.
Next: Deferral · Summary procedures
Published in good faith from public records as fair comment on matters of public interest. Believed accurate at the review date; errors will be corrected and logged on notice. Information, not legal advice; no lawyer-client relationship is created.