Questions from the AODA Alliance
regarding the Three Year Review
1. How many complaints filed by individuals under the old Human Rights Code
were still outstanding before the Human Rights Commission and unresolved,
as of June 30, 2008, when Bill 107 went into effect (the pre-Bill 107 case load)?
In our 2008/09 Annual Report, we stated:
o The OHRC began the fiscal year with 4,199 cases.
o 702 new complaints were received (between April 1, 2008 and June 30, 2008).
o 2,090 complaints were completed at the OHRC (between April 1, 2008 and
December 31, 2008).
o An additional 801 cases were closed as a result of people advising the OHRC
that they were converting their complaints with the OHRC into applications at the
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario as outlined in sections 53(3) and 53(5) of the
Code.
2. Of the pre-Bill 107 caseload still at the Human Rights Commission as of June
30, 2008, how many human rights complainants opted to transfer their cases
directly to the Tribunal under the Tribunal's transition rules between June 30,
2008 and December 31, 2008?
Although the 2008/09 annual report indicated that the OHRC knew about 801
complaints that had been converted into applications at the HRTO at March 31, 2009,
1926 transitional applications were filed at the HRTO by June 30, 2009.
3. Of the pre-Bill 107 caseload remaining at the Human Rights Commission as of
the June 30, 2008 launch of Bill 107 and which didn't opt to go directly to the
Tribunal under the Transition Rules, how many of those cases were resolved
by the end of 2008? How many were sent to the Tribunal during that period,
with the Commission staying involved as a party?
The data for the period June 30, 2008 – December 31, 2008 is subsumed in the April to
December data. In its 2008/09 Annual Report, the OHRC reported that:
o 2,090 complaints were completed at the OHRC (between April 1, 2008 and
December 31, 2008).
o 201 complaints were referred to the HRTO between April 1, 2008 and December
31, 2008, under the old section 36.
4. How many pre-Bill 107 cases that were in the old system on June 30, 2008, and
where the complainant opted to remain in the old system, reached January 1,
2009 as still unresolved? Of those unresolved cases on January 1, 2009, in
how many did the Human Rights Commission not carry their cases forward to
the Tribunal? In other words, how many complainants initially came to the
Human Rights Commission under the old system, opted to stay in the old
Questions from the AODA Alliance
regarding the Three Year Review
system as long as possible, and then found themselves on January 1, 2009
with their cases still unresolved, but without having the Human Rights
Commission available after that to investigate and publicly prosecute their
case?
The OHRC has never had the mandate to “publicly prosecute” cases or to “carry cases”
on behalf of complainants. Before the Human Rights Code was revised, the OHRC
would refer cases to the Tribunal, an adjudicative agency that provides civil (not
criminal) remedies. The OHRC was a separate party from the complainant, and while
its interests often aligned with those of the complainant, they did not always.
Of the information requested: because transition applications were filed with the HRTO,
and not with the OHRC, and complainants had no obligation to advise the OHRC of
their actions, the OHRC does not have this information.
5. How many cases, filed with the Commission under the old system, simply
"died" as of June 30, 2009, when the second transition period expired, due to
inaction on the part of complainants who took no steps to have their
complaints transferred to the Tribunal?
Approximately 750 cases remained with the OHRC on June 30, 2009. Each
complainant would have been sent three (3) letters advising them of the steps they were
to take if they wished to transfer their file.
6. How many Commission-initiated cases had been launched under the old Code
and were still at some stage of the proceedings or process when Bill 107 came
on line on June 30, 2008? Of those, how many are still outstanding now, and
how many were resolved, either by a hearing or settlement?
The OHRC’s records do not show any active Commission-initiated complaints on June
30, 2008.
7. How many Commission-initiated applications has the Commission launched
under Bill 107 since June 30, 2008? We would welcome this information on a
per-year basis and as a total for the full period since Bill 107 went into effect.
We would also appreciate a summary of the topic or issue each addressed, the
ground of discrimination alleged, the respondent or respondents named, the
year launched and the status of the case now (i.e. resolved under mediation, at
a hearing or under an application for judicial review in court).
The OHRC launched 3 applications in July 2009, under section 35 of the Code, dealing
with discrimination in public transportation services because of disability against
Hamilton, Sudbury and Thunder Bay transit providers. These applications have settled.
Page 2 of 8
Questions from the AODA Alliance
regarding the Three Year Review
8. How many Commission-initiated inquiries have been launched under s. 29.i of
Bill 107 since June 30 2008, and in what areas? We would appreciate the same
particulars on them as are listed in the previous question. Of these, in how
many has the Commission used any of the investigative powers referred to in
s. 29.1 of Bill 107?
The Public Interest Inquiries Branch has been working on a number of public-interest
issues since the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2006, took effect including:
 discriminatory housing advertisements;
 mental health (including inquiries dealing with mental health and housing, mental
health in employment and mental health in the provision of services including
healthcare services);
 licensing/zoning bylaws dealing with housing in various municipalities in Ontario,
including Oshawa, North Bay, Toronto, Waterloo, Guelph and Smith Falls;
 the Toronto Police Services Board;
 the Windsor Police Services Board; and,
 transit: Grand River
9. In how many new applications launched under Bill 107 by individual
applicants since June 30, 2008 has the Human Rights Commission applied to
intervene before the Tribunal? In how many of these was the Commission
permitted to intervene? We again would like the same particulars as in
Question 7.
The OHRC has intervened in the following 73 cases at the Human Rights Tribunal of
Ontario:
Dream Team v. Toronto (City)
Gomez v. Sobeys Milton Retail Support Centre
Paterno v. Salvation Army (3 cases)
Demars v. Brampton Youth Hockey Association (5 cases)
Shallow v. Toronto Police Services Board
Claybourn v. Toronto Police Service
Leong v. Peel Regional Police Services Board
de Lottinville v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Ferguson v. Toronto Police Services Board
Goodridge v. Toronto Police Services Board
Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
Morrison v. Ontario Speed Skating Association
Ellis v. Petro-Canada (20 cases)
Whiteley v. Osprey Media Publishing
Howes v. Ontario (Municipal Affairs)
XY v. Ontario (Government and Consumer Services)
Woodwork v. Canadian Blood Services
Page 3 of 8
Questions from the AODA Alliance
regarding the Three Year Review
Lawson v. Ontario (Community and Social Services) (16 cases)
Rosenberg v. Richmond Hill (Town)
Cochrane v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
Carmilo v. Ottawa Police Services Board
Phipps v. Toronto Police Services Board
C.M. v. York Region District School Board
MacDonald v. Downtown Health Club for Women
de Pelham v. Mytrak Health Systems (2 cases)
Johnson v. Scarborough Town Centre Holdings Inc.
Aganeh Estate v. Mental Health Care Penetanguishene
Marshall v. Lakeridge Health Corporation
Zufeld v. Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Stanley v. Toronto Police Service
Fortier v. Child and Family Services of Timmins and District
G.M. by her next friend J.M. v. Waterloo Catholic District School Board
This does NOT included cases that the OHRC referred to the HRTO under the “old”
Human Rights Code.
10. Since June 30, 2008, in how many cases has the Human Rights Commission,
as a party or intervener in proceedings before the Human Rights Tribunal,
used its power under section 44 of Bill 107 to require the Tribunal to consider
a policy that the Commission had approved? In how many cases, if any, where
the Human Rights Commission believes that the Tribunal's decision or order
is inconsistent with the Commission's policy, has the Commission asked the
Tribunal to state a case to the Divisional Court, as permitted by section 44.1 of
Bill 107?
Section 44 of Bill 107 is now section 45.5.
Section 45.5 (1) states: “ In a proceeding under this Part, the Tribunal may consider
policies approved by the Commission under section 30. 2006, c. 30, s. 5.
Same
(2) Despite subsection (1), the Tribunal shall consider a policy approved by the
Commission under section 30 in a proceeding under this Part if a party to the
proceeding or an intervenor requests that it do so. 2006, c. 30, s. 5.”
The OHRC does not record the number of times that a party to an application or an
intervenor has requested the HRTO to consider policies approved by the Commission
under section 30 of the Code.
Page 4 of 8
Questions from the AODA Alliance
regarding the Three Year Review
To date, the OHRC has not needed to apply to the HRTO to have the Tribunal state a
case to the Divisional Court pursuant to section 45.6(1) of the Code.
11. What procedure does the Commission have for members of the public to ask
the Commission to institute a Commission-initiated complaint or application
under Bill 107, or to request an inquiry by the Commission, or to intervene in
an individual's application at the Tribunal? What has the Commission done to
publicize this process? How many requests has the Commission received for
the Commission to launch any of these procedures, but where the
Commission has declined to do so?
The OHRC receives various requests from individuals and organizations to address
issues respecting the Code. While we engage in as wide a range of reviews and
inquiries as resources allow, we cannot fulfill all the requests we receive. General
criteria on which issues should receive our attention can be found here:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/commission/mission/business?page=businessStrategi.html#Heading472 as part of the OHRC Business Plan.
In any situation the OHRC works first to seek non-confrontational solutions such as
those developed with various public sector partners: Toronto and Windsor Police
Services, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing and others. If
such solutions are not available a Public Interest Inquiry could determine that a
Commission-initiated application was appropriate. However, in recent years, we have
found that most institutions we approach are willing to work cooperatively to identify and
eliminate discriminatory practices and processes.
Regarding Interventions: we get requests from HRLSC, from the HRTO and from
individuals. We do not track requests – only interventions.
12. As you know, Bill 107 required the Commission to have a Disability Rights
Secretariat and an Anti-Racism Secretariat as of June 30, 2008. Five years
after Bill 107 was enacted, these have not been established, contrary to the
requirements of Bill 107:
a) Why have these Secretariats still not been established?
s.31.3(1) and s. 31.4(1)
The power to create secretariats does not rest with the OHRC.
b) What steps has the Commission taken to urge the Government to
establish them?
The issue has been discussed with the Government of Ontario.
Page 5 of 8
Questions from the AODA Alliance
regarding the Three Year Review
c) What steps has the Commission taken to inform the public about the
circumstances of this contravention of Bill 107?
The absence of secretariats has not hampered the ability of the OHRC to pursue issues
of disability and racism.
d) What steps has the Commission taken to implement as much of these
requirements as possible on its own?
Racism and disability are current priority areas of work for the OHRC, as described in
our Business Plan.
13. Beyond the decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal, to what extent have the
Human Rights Commission's policy guidelines, policy statements and briefs
since June 2008 caused changes in human rights policies or practices in
Ontario? For example, we know that in spring 2011, the Human Rights
Commission commendably pressed the Ontario Government not to include in
its proposed Integrated Accessibility Regulation under the Accessibility for
Ontarians with Disabilities Act, a provision that any public transit vehicle
(purchased with taxpayers' money) need not be accessible to persons with
disabilities if purchased before July 1, 2011. We were very troubled that the
Ontario Government ignored your advice, and enacted the very provision that
you cautioned against. In what other areas have your new policy statements,
policy guidelines or briefs since June 2008 led to actual change in practices,
and in what areas have they been disregarded? How have you tracked this?
The work of the OHRC is reflected in our Annual Reports. With a mandate to promote
broad systemic change, the ability to measure “change in practices” over short time
periods is limited. The OHRC is, however, working with partners in a variety of priority
areas and seeing growing acceptance of the need to eliminate discrimination and build
inclusion and accommodation into systems and organizations.
14. Is the Human Rights Commission tracking the number of public interest
remedies that the Tribunal orders or that are agreed to by settlements in
applications under the Code since Bill 107 went into effect? To what extent
has the number or proportion of public interest remedies, ordered by the
Human Rights Tribunal or included in human rights settlements, changed
since Bill 107 went into effect?
The OHRC does not track public interest remedies in HRTO orders and cannot in
settlements because that information is not available to the OHRC.
Page 6 of 8
Questions from the AODA Alliance
regarding the Three Year Review
15. Can you please provide us with an updated organization chart for the Human
Rights Commission, preferably in a text-based accessible format, not PDF.
An updated organization chart is attached.
16. What number and designation of staff does the Commission now have
available to investigate human rights issues, and to what extent has the
Commission used its much-reduced power in this context?
Various OHRC staff, from different units and of different designations, contribute to our
expanded ability to hold public interest inquiries into human rights issues. Such inquiries
are conducted as deemed necessary by the Commission.
17. Is the Human Rights Legal Support Centre sufficiently funded to meet the legal
representation needs of victims of discrimination? What is the Commission's
position on the appropriateness of the percentage of cases that cannot get
through on the phone to the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, or that the
Human Rights Legal Support Centre turns away, or to whom it cannot provide
a lawyer, despite possible merit to their cases?
The OHRC has no position on the funding or operations of the HRLSC.
18. To what extent is the Human Rights Commission tracking the data referred to
above?
The OHRC has no mandate to track HRLSC activities.
19. It is very important for community organizations like ours to see the
submissions to this Independent Review that are submitted by the Tribunal,
the Human Rights Commission, and the Human Rights Legal Support Centre.
Indeed, we will need to see them well before we have to submit ours, and
before we have the chance to present at public hearings. Will The Human
Rights Commission agree to provide us and the public with your submission
to the Independent Review, at least ten weeks before the time for filing
submissions, and any public hearings that the Independent Review holds?
Will OHRC make answers to these questions public ten (10) weeks before
public hearing?
The OHRC will be making written submissions to the Independent Review by its
deadline of March 2012. When completed, it will be sent to Andrew Pinto and made
public.
Page 7 of 8
Questions from the AODA Alliance
regarding the Three Year Review
As a final matter, we want to let you know that we are asking the Independent
Review to hold open, accessible public hearings or forums around Ontario,
and to ensure that these are open to all, and not "invitation-only". We ask you
to endorse our call for the Independent Review to hold these open, accessible
public hearings.
Andrew Pinto has said that he intends to hold open and accessible consultations. The
OHRC promotes open consultation that gives people from all communities an
opportunity to be heard.
Page 8 of 8