ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE UPDATE
If you don't now receive our updates directly from us, sign up for AODA Alliance e-mail updates by writing to our new email address: aodafeedback@gmail.comFollow us on Twitter and get others to do so as well! Twitter.com/aodaalliance
Learn more at: www.aodaalliance.org
UNITED FOR A BARRIER-FREE ONTARIO
SIGN UP - TO TELL THE PINTO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE REVIEW WHAT YOU THINK OF THE MCGUINTY GOVERNMENT'S PRIVATIZING HUMAN RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT - AND TELL THE PINTO REVIEW IF YOU SUPPORT OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW TO FIX PROBLEMS WITH THE PINTO REVIEW'S CONSULTATIONS
January 9, 2012
SUMMARY
A major issue is now becoming a priority for us, as we
anticipated – the future of how people who suffer discrimination in
If you have faced barriers due to a disability, have the
Human Rights Tribunal, the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Legal
Support Centre been effective at getting the barrier removed or prevented? Is
Last August, the McGuinty Government appointed
Late last year, on the eve of the December holiday season,
the Andrew Pinto Review released a Consultation Paper on how it will consult the
public. It is important for one and all to immediately sign up to take part in
that Review, and to give their input.
The Pinto Review has only given you up to January 23, 2012
to sign up. We have asked the Review to extend that deadline. You also have
until January 23, 2012 to ask for a separate "Stakeholders Meeting" with Mr.
Pinto, if you don't take part in one of the public meetings he plans to hold
around
We have just written to Andrew Pinto. Our January 9, 2012
letter to him, set out below, tells him about serious concerns with his proposed
consultations. We made 12 constructive recommendations on how to address these
concerns. These are all explained below.
What can you do to help now? There are two things we urge
you to do:
1. Please write
or email Mr. Pinto to endorse the recommendations in our January 9, 2012 letter
to him, set out below, on how to ensure he corrects the problems with the way
his Review is being conducted. You can send him an email, even a short one, at
chair@ontariohumanrightsreview.org.
2. Please
contact the Pinto Human Rights Review to ask to be able to take part in one of
their public forums around Ontario, or to have a separate stakeholder meeting
with him. Use that same email address if you wish, or write or fax him at the
address and fax number set out later in this update.
This Update explains how to take part in the Pinto Human
Rights Review, and describes our concerns over how that Review is being
conducted.
Please circulate this update as widely as possible. We are
concerned that the Pinto Review is not being properly publicized to the public.
The AODA Alliance will later make available detailed
materials that will make it easier for you to take part in this process,
including our proposed feedback to the Pinto Review on the issues he has been
assigned to investigate. We always welcome your feedback on our work, including
on how you think Bill 107 has served Ontarians who face discrimination.
MORE DETAILS
1. What is the
Andrew Pinto Review and why should we be concerned about it?
Back on August 12, 2011, the McGuinty Government appointed
Passed in 2006, Bill 107 is controversial legislation that
the McGuinty Government enacted, over the objection of many including the AODA
Alliance and many others within the disability community, as well as many from
Bill 107
fortunately required the McGuinty Government to appoint an Independent Review
last year, to investigate and consult with the public on whether it has made
things better or worse for discrimination victims like persons with
disabilities. On December 23, 2011, on the eve of the December holidays, and
four months after he was appointed to conduct this review,
We do
not know if the Government will keep the Pinto Review's website up on the
internet after his Review is finished. We thus have posted it on our website on
a permanent basis. You can find it there at:
http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/01092012.asp
2.
How can you take part in the Pinto Human Rights Enforcement Privatization
Review?
You can
present your views to the pinto Review in different ways.
The
Pinto Review has only given you until January 23, 2012 to sign up for their
proposed February, 2012 public forums around Ontario. They are proposing to hold
public forums in
It has
given you up until January 23, 2012 to ask for a separate "Stakeholders'
Meeting" with Mr. Those stakeholders meetings are to be held very shortly after
that, between January 30 and February 3, 2012. Mr. Pinto has given you up until
March 1, 2012 to submit a written submission. In other words, the review gave
itself four months to prepare its rudimentary Consultation Paper, but is giving
the public far less time to prepare and present your input to him on that
Consultation Paper.
Here is
the Pinto Review's contact information:
Email:
chair@ontariohumanrightsreview.org
Fax:
(416) 593-4923
Regular
Mail:
Attn:
Andrew Pinto, Chair
From
what we have found, Mr. Pinto's Consultation Paper and website do not provide a
voice phone number for those who might need this as their means to communicate,
nor a TTY number for people who are deaf, deafened or hard of hearing.
3.
What are our concerns about how the Pinto Human Rights Enforcement
Privatization Review is being conducted?
Back on
November 17, 2011, we wrote to Andrew Pinto to offer constructive suggestions on
how he should conduct this Review. You can see that letter at:
http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/11172011.asp
Mr.
Pinto responded to us in a letter dated December 9, 2011, which we set out
below. We also received an email, set out below, from Mr. Pinto on the afternoon
of Friday, December 23, 2011. In that email he makes public his Review's
Consultation Paper. That Consultation Paper sets out the questions he will focus
on, the way he will consult the public, and the deadlines for taking part.
We
regret that Mr. Pinto has chosen not to follow a number of our recommendations.
We just wrote to Mr. Pinto on January 9, 2012 to raise our concerns with how he
plans to conduct his Review. We set out that letter below. In that letter, we
offer 12 constructive recommendations to address our concerns. We recommend
that:
1.
The Consultation Paper be amended to explicitly inquire whether the Human
Rights Commission has made sufficient use of its power to initiate its own
applications/complaints before the Human Rights Tribunal to effectively combat
systemic discrimination.
2.
The Consultation Paper be amended to inquire explicitly into whether Bill
107's new regime for enforcing human rights has improved the eradication of
systemic discrimination, and has been properly responsive to all
equality-seeking groups, including those who bear the biggest brunt of systemic
discrimination.
3.
The Consultation Paper be amended to remove its proposed inquiry into the
creation of a new barrier to access against discrimination victims, namely, the
possibility of empowering the Human Rights Tribunal to order a party to pay
legal costs. It should instead inquire into the issue of the expanded exposure
to having to pay their opponent's costs in a later court proceeding that human
rights applicants face under Bill 107 if they win at a Tribunal hearing, but a
court overturns that win.
4.
The Consultation Paper be expanded to specifically ascertain how those in
the pre-Bill 107 human rights backlog fared, once Bill 107 came into effect.
5.
The Consultation Paper be expanded to broadly explore how the Human
Rights Tribunal, Commission and Legal Support Centre have handled their new
powers and mandate, including how open, accountable, and receptive to public
input they have been.
6.
The Review far more broadly publicize its public forums, including via
the media, so that people do not have to be on the Review's current email list,
or keep checking the Review's website, to find out about them.
7.
The Review re-schedule its public forums and stakeholder meetings for
March, rather than February, and extend commensurately the date by which people
need to sign up for them.
8.
The consultation paper be revised to ensure that everyone who wants to
make an oral presentation to the Review is afforded time to do so.
9.
The Consultation Paper be amended to include an expanded explanation of
how human rights were enforced under the system before Bill 107, and the
Government's commitments on what Bill 107 would achieve.
10.
The Consultation Paper be amended to permit anonymous submissions,
cautioning that the Review will take into account the fact that the person
submitting it chose not to reveal his or her name when assessing the submission.
11.
The Review announce the availability of Sign Language, captioning,
attendant care and other measures at its public meetings and consultations, to
effective meet the needs of those using speaking languages other than English
and French, and establish an advertised
voice phone number and TTY number for communicating with the Review.
12.
The Review now disclose to the public the entire body of information that
it has been given by, or requested of, the Human Rights Commission, the Human
Rights Tribunal and the Human Rights Legal Support Centre.
We
encourage one and all to write Mr. Pinto to endorse our concerns and
recommendations. The Pinto Review's contact information is set out above.
Send us
your feedback. Let us know what you think we should tell the Pinto Review about
how human rights are now enforced in
*****
AODA
ALLIANCE'S JANUARY 9, 2012 LETTER TO ANDREW PINTO
ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
New
Email Address: aodafeedback@gmail.com
Visit:
www.aodalliance.org
January
9, 2012
VIA
EMAIL
Andrew
Pinto, Chair
M5G 1E6
E-mail:
chair@ontariohumanrightsreview.org
Fax:
(416) 593-4923
Dear Mr.
Pinto,
Re:
Independent Review of Bill 107's Privatizing of Human Rights Enforcement in
Thank
you for your December 9, 2011 letter, and for letting us know about the creation
of your Review's website at
http://www.ontariohumanrightsreview.org; and of your Review's December 23,
2011 Consultation Paper, available at
http://www.ontariohumanrightsreview.org/consultation-paper.
In this
letter, we address: the issues you
propose to focus on in your review of Ontario's new human rights enforcement
system; how you are going to conduct your review of Bill 107; and your approach
to the AODA Alliance and others who were critical of Bill 107, in the 2006
debates over it. We also request a stakeholder meeting with you for the AODA
Alliance in early March.
1.
THE ISSUES YOU PROPOSE TO FOCUS ON IN YOUR REVIEW OF THE NEW HUMAN RIGHTS
SYSTEM
We are
concerned that your Consultation Paper's description of the issues your Review
plans to address, and the questions you ask the public to comment on, are far
too narrow. You have left out many of the important areas of inquiry that we
proposed in our November 17, 2011 letter to you. That letter is available at
http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/11172011.asp.
Your
Review's proposed focus side-steps a number of the key 2006 McGuinty Government
commitments on what Bill 107 would achieve. All our proposed 15 questions fit
within the scope of your review, as mandated by section 57 of Bill 107. We
repeat our 15 core questions at the end of this letter.
As key
examples, we here emphasize five omissions. The effect of these omissions is to
skew the Review in favour of commending Bill 107's impact, by avoiding many of
its potential shortfalls. We ask you to correct these, and alert the public to
these by revising your Consultation Paper and publicizing these changes.
First,
downplayed and sidelined from your Consultation Paper's discussion of Bill 107's
new, more restricted role of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, is any inquiry
into the Commission's use of its power under Bill 107 to initiate its own
applications before the Human Rights Tribunal. Your Consultation Paper asks no
questions about whether the Commission has effectively used this power since
Bill 107 went into effect.
This is
a serious omission. A key area where we believe Bill 107's implementation falls
far short concerns the Human Rights Commission's very limited use of its power
to bring its own applications. The small group of lawyers who proposed Bill 107,
and who vigorously advocated for it in 2006, as well as the McGuinty Government
claimed that under Bill 107, the Human Rights Commission would not be weakened.
The public was told that the Human Rights Legal Support Centre would bring
individual cases. At the same time, the public was told that the Human Rights
Commission would effectively tackle systemic discrimination by using its power
to launch its own public interest applications. These were to be two separate
streams of cases coming to the Human Rights Tribunal under Bill 107.
We are
very concerned that Bill 107's implementation didn't live up to this. Our
November 17, 2011 letter to you asked you to address this issue, among others.
However, your Consultation Paper's list of questions leaves out this important
role of the Commission. It only asks:
"
Whether
the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC), in its revised role, is proactively
addressing systemic human rights issues through activities such as research and
monitoring, policy development, and education and training.
a) How
would you describe your overall experience with the Human Rights Commission?
What were the positive and negative elements of that experience? What areas
could be improved?
b) Was
it easy to find information about the Commission, its programs and activities?
Have you used any of the information or tools on the Commission’s website? Was
the Commission accessible?
c) Have
you been involved in any public education programs provided by the Commission or
participated in the Commission’s public consultations?
d) Has
the Commission provided assistance to you or your organization in understanding
human rights or preventing discrimination?
e) Did
the Commission intervene in your application before the Tribunal?"
Moreover, your Consultation Paper, in only briefly referring to the Commission's
power to initiate its own cases, incorrectly suggests or implies that this power
has been preserved from the old Human Rights Code. It states: "The OHRC retained
its authority to initiate and intervene in applications before the HRTO." In
fact, and over our objections in 2006, Bill 107
reduced that power, reducing the kinds
of remedies the Commission could thereby seek.
Could
you please let us know why and how your Review decided to omit this question.
Did anyone at the Government or elsewhere ask you to omit this, or to take any
steps to downplay it?
It is no
solution to this omission for your Consultation Paper to invite people generally
to address any topic they wish.
We
therefore ask that:
1.
The Consultation Paper be amended to explicitly inquire whether the Human
Rights Commission has made sufficient use of its power to initiate its own
applications/complaints before the Human Rights Tribunal to effectively combat
systemic discrimination.
Second,
more generally, your Consultation Paper, including the questions it asks of the
public, does not focus clearly and sufficiently on whether, under Bill 107's new
regime, the problems of systemic discrimination are adequately tackled. For
example, is the Human Rights Legal Support Centre taking on an appropriate
proportion of cases in the areas of disability discrimination, discrimination
against racialized communities etc.? How is it setting priorities as a new
gate-keeper? Is the Tribunal ordering (or being asked to order) public interest
remedies as often as before Bill 107?
We
therefore recommend that:
2.
The Consultation Paper be amended to inquire explicitly into whether Bill
107's new regime for enforcing human rights has improved the eradication of
systemic discrimination, and has been properly responsive to all
equality-seeking groups, including those who bear the biggest brunt of systemic
discrimination.
Third,
your Consultation Paper asks whether the Human Rights Tribunal should be able to
order a party to pay the opposing party's legal costs. This, among other things,
opens up the possibility that the Tribunal might be allowed to order a
discrimination complainant to pay legal costs of the party they accuse of
discrimination. As you know, at present the Tribunal is not permitted to do
this.
It is
not within your mandate to investigate or recommend the creation of new barriers
to access to the Human Rights Tribunal, to make it even harder for
discrimination victims to enforce their human rights. The Government and those
who advocated for Bill 107 claimed it would improve access to human rights
protection and enforcement for victims of discrimination. Despite that, Bill 107
now makes a discrimination victim bear the new burden of having to themselves
investigate and enforce their own human rights case, with no avenue for a public
investigation and prosecution of their case.
It could only make things worse for discrimination victims to also have
to face the risk of being ordered to pay legal costs if they lose.
This
concern is amplified by the fact that your Consultation Paper also does not
mention or ask about a new costs exposure that Bill 107 makes problematic for
discrimination victims. Our November 17, 2011 letter asked you to investigate
that issue. On our list of proposed questions that your Review should explore is
the following, of which there is no mention in your Consultation Paper:
"15.
What is the impact on human rights protection and enforcement of the new primary
exposure of human rights complainants/applicants (in the absence of
participation by the Human Rights Commission) to pay the legal costs of
respondents if the complainant/applicant is unsuccessful in a judicial review
application in court to challenge a Human Rights Tribunal ruling?"
We
therefore request that:
3.
The Consultation Paper be amended to remove its proposed inquiry into the
creation of a new barrier to access against discrimination victims, namely, the
possibility of empowering the Human Rights Tribunal to order a party to pay
legal costs. It should instead inquire into the issue of the expanded exposure
to having to pay their opponent's costs in a later court proceeding that human
rights applicants face under Bill 107 if they win at a Tribunal hearing, but a
court overturns that win.
Fourth,
your Consultation Paper marginalizes the plight of those who don't feel they can
use the new human rights enforcement system at all. Similarly, it doesn't
separately look into the plight of those in the backlog of the old system when
Bill 107 came on line. The McGuinty Government and those who advocated for Bill
107 made the plight of those in the backlog their prime focus. It is important
to find out how those in that pre-Bill 107 backlog fared under Bill 107.
We
therefore recommend that:
4.
The Consultation Paper be expanded to specifically ascertain how those in
the pre-Bill 107 human rights backlog fared, once Bill 107 came into effect.
Fifth,
your Consultation Paper principally focuses on how individual cases were
handled. That is, of course, important. However, it is also important for your
Review to investigate how open, accountable and effective are the Human Rights
Commission, Tribunal and Legal Support Centre, when discharging their new
responsibilities under Bill 107.
For
example, we found that the Tribunal was so chronically unreceptive to our input
on the development of its new rules of procedure that we eventually gave up
investing any more time into providing it with any more input. As another
example, the Human Rights Legal Support Centre has in effect taken upon itself
the new role of a gate-keeper, setting its own priorities of which cases and
issues to push or make a priority. How has it done this? With input from whom?
How open and accountable has it been?
We
therefore recommend that:
5.
The Consultation Paper be expanded to broadly explore how the Human
Rights Tribunal, Commission and Legal Support Centre have handled their new
powers and mandate, including how open, accountable, and receptive to public
input they have been.
2.
HOW YOU ARE GOING TO CONDUCT YOUR REVIEW OF BILL 107
We
appreciate your providing some specifics on how you plan to conduct this Review,
and your agreeing to hold public forums. We wish to raise some concerns about
your plans, and offer workable recommendations. These would ensure that you can
get your review done on time, while helping better ensure that the public has a
full and proper opportunity to take part.
First,
your Review needs to far more actively advertise and publicize this
consultation, the Consultation Paper itself, and the dates, times, and avenues
for individuals and organizations to take part in it. As far as we have seen,
all that has been done to publicize your consultations since limited media
coverage on the launch of your review last August (when many were away on
vacation) has been the establishment of your website, and your sending out an
email on Friday, December 23, 2011, to some people and organizations.
We are
concerned that the vast majority of people and organizations interested in these
issues likely have no idea about your consultation paper, or your proposed
public forums, or other avenues for input. This review bears on fundamental
rights and concerns of millions of Ontarians, including those that the human
rights system has not effectively served. They should not be left to hunt on the
internet to see if a new website has been launched, or to hope they are among
those on the email list you used.
Did your
email list include all the individuals and organizations who signed up to take
part in the Legislature's public hearings on Bill 107, back in 2006? As you
know, many were blocked from taking part in those hearings, by the McGuinty
Government's controversial November 21, 2006 closure motion. In 2006, the
McGuinty Government cancelled
continued public hearings on Bill 107 that had been promised, advertised and
scheduled. For more on that controversial closure motion, see
http://www.aodaalliance.org/reform/update-112306.asp
Our
November 17, 2011 letter to you recommended that you extensively publicize your
consultations. For example, we wrote:
"Ample
prior publicity of these events should be provided in an accessible way, through
media that will effectively reach as many interested people, including people
with disabilities as possible. It is certainly not sufficient to simply post an
announcement on a website, and hope interested people and organizations will
find it."
Your
Consultation Paper states that, for people to learn about the times and
locations of your public forums, they will have to keep checking your website in
January. It states: "The times and venues will be announced on the review’s
website…"
You
should be widely publicizing these public forums and other avenues for receiving
public input through other media that reach a very broad audience, including
those with no access to the internet.
We
therefore recommend that:
6.
The Review far more broadly publicize its public forums, including via
the media, so that people do not have to be on the Review's current email list,
or keep checking the Review's website, to find out about them.
Second,
we are concerned about the deadlines for the public to take part in your Review.
Your announcing your deadlines, including deadlines to sign up for public forums
or stakeholder meetings, has been delayed longer than appropriate.
The
Government had three years to plan for this review. You have had over four
months since your appointment last August to set and publicize your schedule.
Yet your Consultation Paper was only announced by an email from you on
Friday, December 23, 2011 after noon. That is the eve of the December holiday
period, when many are away, or heading off on vacation, and not gearing up for a
major human rights review.
Two
other matters compound this problem:
the insufficient publicity of your Review's consultation process described
earlier, and the Human Rights Commission's not yet answering our November 14,
2011 request for information. We and others need that information to provide
your Review with effective input. We have not finished our review of the
information provided by the Human Rights Tribunal and Legal Support Centre, to
determine if they were sufficient to meet our needs. Our November 14, 2011
request for information is available at:
http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/11152011.asp
You
propose to hold public forums in February, the heart of the Canadian winter. It
would be better to hold them instead in March, when the weather can be less
severe. Large volumes of snow can be a real barrier for persons with
disabilities, as well as being problematic for many others. Holding these forums
in March will also help offset the problem of insufficient publicity to date of
these forums and timelines.
We
therefore recommend that:
7.
The Review re-schedule its public forums
and stakeholder meetings for March, rather than February, and extend
commensurately the date by which people need to sign up for them.
Third,
your consultation paper makes it clear that members of the public who request a
chance to present at one of your public forums may not be permitted to make an
oral presentation. It states:
"individual presenters will be limited to 10 minutes and organizations will be
limited to 15 minutes. Depending on demand, you may not be allocated a time
slot."
This is
unacceptable. Everyone who wants to speak at these forums should be given a time
slot to do so. If you receive more requests for time to present at your public
forums than can be accommodated, you should either extend the meeting, or
convene an added event.
Those
who advocated for Bill 107 made, as a core argument, the fact that everyone
should get an oral hearing at the Human Rights Tribunal.
Bill 107 was promised to achieve this. Your review will need, among other
things, to ascertain whether it lived up to that promise. We believe that it is
especially incumbent on the Review to ensure that everyone who wants to make an
oral presentation at these public forums is allowed to do so.
We
therefore recommend that:
8.
The consultation paper be revised to ensure that everyone who wants to
make an oral presentation to the Review is afforded time to do so.
Fourth,
your consultation paper does not properly and sufficiently explain how human
rights enforcement worked in
We
therefore recommend that:
9.
The Consultation Paper be amended to include an expanded explanation of
how human rights were enforced under the system before Bill 107, and the
Government's commitments on what Bill 107 would achieve.
Fourth,
the Consultation Paper categorically states that you will not consider any
anonymous submissions. It states:
"5.
Anonymous submissions will not be considered by the review."
We agree
that it is far preferable for people to give their name when they make a
submission. However, there may be some, including some working within the three
human rights agencies whose work you are to review, within the Government or
elsewhere, who may only feel at liberty to make a submission if it is anonymous.
To categorically rule them out in advance potentially skews the review in favour
of the status quo under Bill 107. To be effective, and to ensure that you can
hear from people at all levels working within the three human rights agencies,
your Review should give some latitude for anonymous submissions including, for
example, whistle-blowers.
We
therefore recommend that:
10.
The Consultation Paper be amended to permit anonymous submissions,
cautioning that the Review will take into account the fact that the person
submitting it chose not to reveal his or her name when assessing the submission.
Fifth,
we are eager to ensure the full accessibility of your consultation process. We
would like to know what steps you have taken to ensure that all your public
forums will have Sign Language interpretation and open captioning, as well as
attendant care. Also, we are eager to know what steps you are taking to ensure
that your public forums and consultation materials are available in alternate
formats and in a wide range of languages, beyond English and French, in light of
the obvious importance of the Human Rights Code to a diverse public.
From
what we have found, your Consultation Paper and website do not provide a voice
phone number for those who might need this as their means to communicate, nor a
TTY number for people who are deaf, deafened or hard of hearing.
We
therefore recommend that:
11.
The Review announce the availability of Sign Language, captioning,
attendant care and other measures at its public meetings and consultations, to
effective meet the needs of those using speaking languages other than English
and French, and establish an advertised
voice phone number and TTY number for communicating with the Review.
Sixth,
your Consultation Paper indicates that you have already met with the three human
rights institutions in the
It is
important for the public (including those who will present to your Review) to
now see the entire body of information disclosed to you, whether in writing or
verbally, at those meetings or otherwise. You should also disclose an indication
of any information your Review has requested from any of these human rights
agencies.
We
therefore recommend that:
12.
The Review now disclose to the public the entire body of information that
it has been given by, or requested of, the Human Rights Commission, the Human
Rights Tribunal and the Human Rights Legal Support Centre.
3.
YOUR APROACH TO THE AODA
In your
December 9, 2011 letter to us, you seek to defend your role, as the person
conducting this review, by stating that you are independent of the Ontario
Government. However, your letter did not address concerns regarding the Review's
impartiality.
A
fundamental concern is that this independent review be conducted in a fair and
impartial way. It should have no prior pre-disposition, either in favour of or
against Bill 107, or the arguments that any side might present to the Review.
Last year, we supported the call for the appointment of a person to conduct this
independent review who had not taken active part in the controversial 2006
public debate over Bill 107, whether in support of it, or against it. See
http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/07132011.asp.
Our involvement in the 2006 Bill 107 controversy is detailed at
http://www.aodaalliance.org/reform/default.asp.
The
government rejected that advice. It has not explained why it did so. To conduct
this Review, the McGuinty Government selected you, a person who was a strong,
tenacious, articulate and passionate activist and advocate in support of Bill
107, and who was a similarly forceful opponent to the position of the AODA
Alliance on Bill 107, back in 2006. We of course fully recognize your knowledge
of and commitment to human rights.
It will
be incumbent on you to satisfy the public, including us, our supporters, and
others who voiced serious concerns about Bill 107, that you are assessing the
operation of
4.
REQUESTING STAKEHOLDER MEETING WITH YOU
You
invited the public to request a chance for a separate stakeholder meeting with
you. I hereby request such a meeting with you, for the AODA Alliance to provide
our input into your review. In order for us to be able to prepare properly, we
would appreciate having the opportunity to have this meeting, no sooner than the
first week of March.
Your
Consultation Paper asks us to outline our mandate and interest in your Review.
We trust that you are well aware of our mandate and activities. You can see our
activities on Bill 107 detailed at
http://www.aodaalliance.org/reform/default.asp. You can see our activities
in advancing for accessibility for persons with disabilities generally
documented at:
http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/default.asp. Issues which
we wish to address are highlighted in our November 17, 2011 letter to you. We
may expand those issues as we further prepare.
The AODA
Alliance is a voluntary non-partisan coalition of individuals and organizations.
Its mission is:
"to
contribute to the achievement of a barrier-free
Our
coalition is the successor to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. The
ODA Committee advocated for over ten years for the enactment of strong,
effective disability accessibility legislation. Our coalition builds on the ODA
Committee’s work. We draw our supporters from the ODA Committee's broad,
grassroots base. To learn about the ODA Committee's history, visit:
http://www.odacommittee.net.
We look
forward to hearing what action you will take in response to this letter. We will
take steps to publicize your review to those who follow our updates.
Sincerely,
David
Lepofsky, CM, O.Ont.
Chair,
AODA
cc:
Michael Gottheil, Executive Chair,
Social Justice
Tribunals Ontario
michael.gottheil@ontario.ca
Barbara Hall,
Chief Commissioner,
barbara.hall@ohrc.on.ca
Kathy Laird, Executive Director,
Human Rights Legal Support Centre
klaird@hrlsc.on.ca
David Wright, Associate Chair,
Human Rights Tribunal of
david.wright@ontario.ca
EXCERPT
FROM OUR NOVEMBER 17, 2011 LETTER TO ANDREW PINTO
Questions this independent review should ask include, for example:
1.
Has Bill 107, as implemented to date, fulfilled the commitments that the
McGuinty government made in 2006? The government's commitments are listed and
documented at
http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/07022008.asp
Has it
delivered the benefits that its proponents and advocates said it would?
2.
How large is the caseload backlog in
3.
How many and what percentage of human rights complainants/applicants are
being provided legal representation by the Human Rights Legal Support Centre
when taking their case to the Human Rights Tribunal?
Of these, how many and what percentage are being represented by lawyers,
as opposed to non-lawyers? How many
people, and what percentage of total complainants/applicants, are unrepresented
during formal or informal proceedings at the Human Rights Tribunal?
4.
How many and what percentage of discrimination claimants is the Human
Rights Legal Support Centre serving, and how many or what percentage are being
turned away or not getting through? For a newspaper report on the high number of
callers not even getting through to the human rights legal support centre, visit
http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/05292010.asp
5.
How long does it take to get a case decided at the Human Rights Tribunal?
6.
How many and what percentage of human rights complainants/applicants are
getting a full hearing on their case's merits at the Human Rights Tribunal?
7.
How does the Human Rights Legal Support Centre decide which cases to give
full legal representation, versus legal advice, as opposed to turning them away?
By what criteria? What
priorities is the Human Rights Legal Support Centre focusing on in handling
cases? How are these priorities set?
What input from equality-seeking communities is obtained and used to set these
priorities?
8.
Did Bill 107 strengthen or weaken the Human Rights Commission as an
effective agency for combating discrimination in
a) To
what extent and in what cases is the Human Rights Commission using its power to
intervene in cases at the Tribunal, to initiate its own cases at the Tribunal,
or to launch inquiries under its powers in Bill 107?
How effective have these been at combating systemic discrimination?
b) What
impact has the Commission's policy statements had on the protection and
enforcement of human rights since the Commission lost its core power to enforce
the Code?
9.
What happened to the many cases that were in the Human Rights
Commission's backlog when Bill 107 took effect?
10.
Now that the Human Rights Commission has been removed from the vast
majority of cases before the Human Rights Tribunal, how often are "public
interest remedies" being ordered by the Tribunal, or included in case
settlements, to systemically prevent future discrimination?
How are these remedies monitored?
How effective are they at preventing future discrimination? The Human
Rights Commission used to have lead responsibility for trying to get public
interest remedies in human rights cases, like orders requiring an organization
to adopt a human rights policy, to undertake human rights training and to take
other steps to prevent future human rights violations.
11.
To what extent has the Human Rights Tribunal taken into account the input
of the public in designing its new Rules of Procedure?
12.
To what extent have the Tribunal's new rules of procedure resulted in
hearings and other proceedings that are fair, and that are publicly seen as
fair?
13.
What is the impact on human rights enforcement and protection of Bill
107's elimination of the right to appeal from the Human Rights Tribunal to
court, and Bill 107's restricting court review of Tribunal decisions to cases
where the Tribunal's decision is patently unreasonable?
14.
Does Bill 107 sufficiently provide for public oversight of and public
accountability of the Human Rights Tribunal, Commission and Legal Support
Centre?
15.
What is the impact on human rights protection and enforcement of the new
primary exposure of human rights complainants/applicants (in the absence of
participation by the Human Rights Commission) to pay the legal costs of
respondents if the complainant/applicant is unsuccessful in a judicial review
application in court to challenge a Human Rights Tribunal ruling?
*****
ANDREW
PINTO'S DECEMBER 23, 2012 EMAIL TO THE AODA
Sent on
behalf of Andrew Pinto, Ontario Human Rights Review
The
Ontario Human Rights Review has produced a Consultation Paper that I
wanted
to bring to your attention. The
Consultation Paper as well as
information on How to Participate in the Review are available on the
Review's
website: www.ontariohumanrightsreview.org
<http://www.ontariohumanrightsreview.org> .
I would
appreciate if you could forward this email on to others who may
be
interested in the Ontario Human Rights Review.
I look
forward to your participation.
Yours
very truly,
Andrew
Pinto
Amelita
Reyes
t
416-703-2067
f
416-593-4923
areyes@pintowrayjames.com
www.pintowrayjames.com
****
ANDREW
PINTO'S DECEMBER 9, 2011 LETTER TO THE AODA
www.ontariohumanrightsreview.org
Chair: Andrew Pinto
393 University Avenue
E-mail:
chair@ontariohumanrightsreview.org
Fax: (416)
593-4923
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M5G 1E6
Via
Email: dlepofsky@sympatico.ca
and
Regular Mail
December
9, 2011
David
Lepofsky, Chair
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act
Dear Mr.
Lepofsky:
Thank
you for your letter of November 17, 2011.
I am responding to the three issues that your letter broadly addresses,
namely:
(a)
The independence of the Review;
(b)
Questions the Review should ask; and
(c)
How the Review will consult the public.
An
important consideration that cuts across all three issues is the scope of the
Review. As you know, my mandate
arises from section 57 of the Human Rights Code which states:
57.
(1) Three years after the effective date, the Minister shall appoint a
person who shall undertake a review of the implementation and effectiveness of
the changes resulting from the enactment of that Act.
Public consultations
(2) In conducting a review under this section, the person appointed under
subsection (1) shall hold public consultations.
Report to Minister
(3) The person appointed under subsection (1) shall prepare a report on
his or her findings and submit the report to the Minister within one year of his
or her appointment.
Upon my
appointment, I created a website: www.ontariohumanrightsreview.org that contains
information concerning the Review.
On the website, I indicated that my Terms of Reference include a commitment to
review the following:
•
Whether the redesigned Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) is
providing quicker and direct access for applicants and a fair dispute resolution
process for all parties, including respondents.
•
Whether the new Human Rights Legal Support Centre (HRLSC) is effective in
providing information, support, advice, assistance and legal representation for
those seeking a remedy before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).
•
Whether the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC), in its revised role,
is proactively addressing systemic human rights issues through activities such
as research and monitoring, policy development, and education and training.
•
Stakeholder feedback: analyze and qualify perceptions and experiences of
key stakeholders, human rights advocates/experts, and the public.
•
Where appropriate, the Reviewer will offer advice to the government
regarding any best practices that should be supported and any advice for
enhancing the effectiveness of
As you
will see from the foregoing, my mandate is limited by the words of section 57 of
the Code. I am to conduct a “review
of the implementation and effectiveness of the changes resulting from the
enactment of” the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2006 [Bill 107].
My focus will be on the extent to which the current system is delivering
against universally desirable objectives such as access to justice, transparent
adjudication, timely disposition of cases, and the elimination of systemic
discrimination.
Having
clarified my mandate, I would like to specifically address the three broad
points in your letter.
(a)
My
Review is independent of government.
It is also independent of the three human rights agencies (HRTO, OHRC, HRLSC).
It is also independent of any political party, organization, individual
or group of individuals. As you
know, I have been a lawyer practicing in
(b)
Questions the Review Should Ask
I have
noted the questions that you would like me to ask and many of them relate to
statistical data that you have requested, by separate correspondence, from the
HRTO, OHRC and the HRLSC. I have
contacted and met with those agencies and have asked them to cooperate fully
with my independent Review. Since
the start of my Review, a number of individuals and organizations have similarly
identified questions or areas of concern that I should examine.
I will take all of these questions and suggestions into consideration as
I conduct the Review. The
consultation paper that I will provide on the Review’s website in the next few
weeks will elaborate on those areas that I consider, at least on a preliminary
basis, to warrant examination and to which I hope to attract public comment.
(c) How
the Independent Review will Consult the Public
In my
consultation paper I will elaborate on this point, however, I can advise that I
will be holding a number of open and accessible public hearings throughout
In
addition to these types of open public consultations, I will be accepting
written submissions and conducting one-on-one or smaller group meetings where I
believe that the nature of the individual or organization's concern is better
handled through a personal meeting.
A number of individuals and organizations including some persons with
disabilities have had experiences that may be difficult or inappropriate to
share in a public forum and I do not want to lose their input by only having
formal, public meetings. I wish to
be flexible in my approach to hearing from the public, and I am also exploring
whether technologies like videoconferencing will provide some communities or
individuals with better access to the Review.
I am certainly aware of Mr. Beer's Review of the Accessibility for
Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, and I also thank you for your
organization's suggestions as to how to conduct an accessible process.
I trust
that the foregoing is of assistance to your members and I look forward to their
constructive participation in the Review.
Yours
very truly,
“SIGNED
COPY”
Andrew
Pinto
AP:ar
cc:
Michael Gottheil
Executive Chair, Social Justice Tribunals Ontario michael.gottheil@ontario.ca
Barbara Hall
Chief
Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission barbara.hall@ohrc.on.ca
Kathy Laird
Executive Director, Human Rights Legal Support Centre klaird@hrlsc.on.ca
David Wright
Associate Chair, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario david.wright@ontario.ca
Subscribe to our RSS Feed to receive AODA updates
