AODA Alliance
Download:
aoda alliance final bill 107 brief – MS Doc
or
Read Online:
Bill 107’s new s. 41 provides in material part:
Dismissal of proceeding without hearing
41. (1) The Tribunal may dismiss a proceeding, in whole or in part, without a
hearing, if,
(a) the proceeding is frivolous, vexatious or is commenced in bad faith;
(b) the proceeding relates to matters that are outside the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal;
(c) some aspect of the statutory requirements for bringing the proceeding has
not been met;
(d) the application is made under section 35 and the facts alleged in the
application, even if true, do not disclose an infringement of a right of the
applicant under Part I;
(e) the application is made under section 36 and the facts alleged in the
application, even if true, do not disclose infringements of a right under Part I
that are of a systemic nature;
(f) the application is made under subsection 45.1 (3) and the facts alleged in
the application, even if true, do not disclose a contravention of a settlement;
or
(g) the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately
dealt with the substance of an application.
. Section 34 provides in material part:
34. (1) The Tribunal may make rules governing the practice and procedure before it.
(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the rules may,
(a) provide that the Tribunal is not required to hold a hearing;
(b) limit the extent to which the Tribunal is required to give full opportunity
to the parties to present their evidence and to make their submissions;
. Bill 107’s section 40 provides:
40. The Tribunal may defer an application in accordance with the Tribunal rules.
. The Toronto Star reported as follows:
June 26, 2006
Province appeals ruling allowing two inquests; Psych patients deaths at issue:
Rights tribunal had given okay
Heba Aly
A ruling that two families have waited years for is now being appealed by the
provincial government, leaving them wondering if justice will ever be served.
It seems Robert Illingworth and Renata Braithwaite rejoiced too quickly when the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ordered inquests into the deaths of their loved ones.
Thomas Illingworth, 50, and Melba Braithwaite, 53, were both involuntary
psychiatric patients in Toronto institutions when they died – the first after an
alleged confrontation with staff, the second after falling in the shower
unsupervised.
According to the Coroner’s Act, inquests are mandatory when a person dies in
prison or in police custody. But when a person dies in a psychiatric facility
during involuntary detention ordered by a physician, inquests are up to the
discretion of the coroner.
Last month, former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Peter Cory ruled this law was discriminatory.
But last week, the Attorney General for Ontario and the Chief Coroner filed a
notice of appeal.
“I was so angry. I just hit the roof,” said Robert Illingworth, who has waited
11 years to find out what happened to his brother. The attorney general’s
ministry argues that the tribunal disregarded the “public interest mandate of
the Coroner’s Act” by treating an inquest as a service to an individual and that
it admitted testimony from people “who had no relevant expertise and who lacked impartiality.”
The act already recognizes “a special need or vulnerability of the mentally ill”
by requiring that all deaths be investigated, Chief Coroner Dr. Barry McLellan
added.
But that’s not good enough for Progressive Conservative MPP Cam Jackson, whose bill requiring inquests into the deaths of children in court-ordered custody was approved in the provincial legislature last week.
“An investigation is closed and a coroner’s inquest is an open process.”
NDP leader Howard Hampton said the government needs to show leadership by
changing the Coroner’s Act. “Simply allowing this to be fought back and forth in
the courts is not satisfactory.” A spokesperson at the attorney general’s office
could not be reached for comment. A spokesperson for the minister of community safety would not comment because the matter is before the courts.
This is all very “disappointing” for Renata Braithwaite. “She has fought for
more than five years to get answers into her mother’s death,” said her lawyer
Suzan Fraser.
. Bill 107’s new s. 35 would provide in material part:
35. (5) A person who believes that one of his or her rights under Part I has
been infringed may not make an application under subsection (1) with respect to
that right if,
(a) a civil proceeding has been commenced in a court in which the person is
seeking an order under section 46.2 with respect to the alleged infringement and
the proceeding has not been finally determined; or
(b) a court has finally determined the issue of whether the right has been
infringed.
This new provision invokes s. 46.2, a new provision that Bill 107 creates, which
states:
46.2 (1) If, in a civil proceeding in a court, the court finds that a party to
the proceeding has infringed a right under Part I of another party to the
proceeding, the court may order the party who infringed the right to pay
monetary compensation to the party whose right was infringed for injury to
dignity, feelings and self-respect.
Same
(2) Subsection (1) does not create a cause of action based solely on an
infringement of a right under Part I.
…
(6) For the purpose of subsection (5), a proceeding or issue has not been
finally determined if a right of appeal exists and the time for appealing has
not expired.
. The Liberal party’s 2003 election promise as set out in a letter from Dalton
McGuinty to David Lepofsky, chair of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act
committee, which read as follows:
Dalton McGuinty, MPP
Leader of the Official Opposition
Room 381, Legislative Building, Queen’s Park
Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A4
(416) 325-7155
(416) 325-9895 fax
April 7, 2003
David Lepofsky
Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee
1929 Bayview Avenue
Toronto, ON M4G 3E8
Dear Mr. Lepofsky,
I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of the Liberal Caucus to thank
you once again for the work that you and your organization are doing to improve
the lives of people with disabilities here in Ontario.
I would also like to share with you the Ontario Liberal Party platform for the
approaching election regarding Ontarians With Disabilities.
We believe that the Harris-Eves government’s Ontarians With Disabilities Act
does not even begin to adequately address the needs and rights of countless
Ontarians. We therefore commit that:
We will introduce, with the intent of passing within one year of forming
government, a strong and effective Ontarians With Disabilities Act, following
fully-accessible, province-wide hearings. It will incorporate all 11 principles
that were adopted by the Ontario Legislature on October 29, 1998. The
legislation and regulations will include timelines, standards and a mechanism
for effective enforcement, and, at a minimum, will reflect the substance of
amendments to the Conservative bill offered by the Liberal party in the fall of
2001.
As Premier, I will meet with ODA Committee representatives and my government
will work together with the Committee to develop the new Act.
On forming government following the election, we will provide a Cost of Living
increase for participants in the Ontario Disability Support Program.
I look forward to continuing to work with you to advance the interests of
persons with disabilities in Ontario and I wish you the greatest possible
success in that regard.
Yours truly,
Dalton McGuinty, MPP
Leader of the Official Opposition
Leader of the Ontario Liberal Party
. The following documents some of the public record exchanges on point:
Excerpts from the Hansard of the Standing Committee on Social Policy’s January
31, 2005 Hearings on Bill 118, the Proposed Accessibility for Ontarians with
Disabilities Act
(Underlining Added)
1. Ms. Martel: With respect to what the tribunal can do, I don’t see a lot of
guarantee about public access. First of all, I don’t really see where there is
an opportunity for people to make complaints if they are concerned about an
accessibility standard — not an organization to which the standard has been
applied, but persons who are concerned that a standard may not be stringent
enough or may not be implemented properly. I don’t see much room for them at the tribunal, because the tribunal seems to be a place where you go to deal with an order. What is the mechanism for public input around complaints that
accessibility is just not being achieved in a timely fashion, be it in one
sector or another? Where do people have a chance to fit in here and have their
complaints reviewed, investigated in a very serious manner, and adjudicated?
1010
Ms. Hewson: There is no individual complaints process provided for in the bill.
Individuals who believe they have been discriminated against under the Human
Rights Code can go to the Human Rights Commission. However, this bill is
proactive in nature, with standards that have to be complied with, so the
organization that is required to comply with the standard must do so. It must
provide its report to the public, so there is public access to information
there. It must file its report with the government, and there can be an
inspection. So somebody who felt the organization was not, for example,
complying with the standard could first of all go to the organization itself
based on the report and say, “You say that you are doing X, but here we see that
you are not doing it. Therefore, you should do it.” That’s one mechanism. It is
not a legal complaints mechanism.
2. Ms. Martel: Let me just respond in this way, and then I’ll move on to another
point: I ask myself the question, “Are we really challenging ourselves” — and I
say that generally — “with the 20-year time frame?” I can’t believe that we
are. There will be some employers who will drag their feet for as long as they
possibly can because they don’t want to comply. We can’t work from their
timetable, because they are not interested in making the changes that are
necessary to ensure that everyone can participate. There are some other
employers, as we already said, who are well on the way, and we should be working with their best practices and seeing how much of their best practices can be applied to other sectors and in other jurisdictions to move people forward. I remain very concerned. Twenty years is a whole generation of people who will continue essentially to be left out when they have an enormous contribution to make.
I guess the challenge I leave with you is that if, during the course of the
hearings, groups come forward and say, “We think the time frame should be less;
we think we can rise to this opportunity and this challenge and do it in a
shorter time frame,” I hope your government will be prepared to listen to that,
accept that and make changes, either with respect to standards development and
that cycle and/or — and I hope both — with respect to a final time frame that
would be shorter, so we allow people to participate fully much sooner than 20
years from now.
The second point I want to raise — it’s funny that you mentioned court, because
one of the concerns I want to raise is essentially with the purpose clause.
Their reference for wanting a change had to do with whether or not people would end up in court because the interpretation of the statute might be challenged. Their concern had to do with the fact that the purpose clause currently talks about a benefit to all Ontarians, which is fine, when in their view the purpose of the act should be to ensure that Ontarians with disabilities can participate fully and there is an end to the systemic discrimination they have faced for so many years now. They very clearly believe — and I agree with them — that the purpose clause should very clearly talk about this legislation being
anti-discrimination legislation. That is the purpose; that is the point. This is
a group of Ontarians whom we are trying to benefit. So I’m asking — I asked
this to staff earlier, and I’m sure ARCH and, I hope, other groups will come
forward and talk about the purpose clause — if you would go back and have
another serious review of the purpose clause to see how it can be strengthened
so that the intent is clearly outlined: This is anti-discrimination legislation
— that’s the point — and it should be in the purpose clause.
Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: We will definitely take that under advisement, because
that is the intent of the bill, or that was the intent of the bill. Indeed, any
legislation that gives the most rights to the disabled will be adhered to,
whether it’s this legislation or the Human Rights Commission’s. We are not
taking anything away from the Human Rights Commission.
Excerpts from the Hansard of the Standing Committee on Social Policy’s April 11,
2005 Clause By Clause Debates on Bill 118, the Proposed Accessibility for
Ontarians with Disabilities Act:
(Underlining added)
1. We go to section 26, pages 59 and 59a.
Mr. Marchese: I move that section 26 of the bill be struck out and the following
substituted:
“Tribunal
“26. (1) There is hereby established a tribunal to be known as the Accessibility
Appeals Tribunal in English and Tribunal d’appel en matière d’accessibilité in
French.
“Composition
“(2) The tribunal shall be composed of such members as may be appointed by the
Lieutenant Governor in Council.
“Chair, vice-chair
“(3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall appoint a chair and may appoint
one or more vice-chairs of the tribunal from among the members of the tribunal.
“Remuneration
“(4) The members of the tribunal shall be paid such allowances and expenses as
are fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
“Employees
“(5) Such employees as are considered necessary for the proper conduct of the
tribunal may be appointed under the Public Service Act.
“Rules
“(6) The tribunal may make rules regulating its practice and procedure and
generally for the conduct and management of its affairs and such rules are not
regulations within the meaning of the Regulations Act.
“Panels
“(7) The chair of the tribunal may appoint panels composed of one or more
members of the tribunal to hold hearings in the place of the full tribunal
wherever the tribunal is required to hold a hearing under this act and, where a
panel holds a hearing, the panel has all the powers and duties, except the power
referred to in subsection (6), given to the tribunal under this act.
1630
“Powers and duties
“(8) The tribunal may exercise such powers and shall perform such duties as are
conferred or imposed upon it by or under this act.”
The section simply replaces the current provisions that allow for multiple
tribunals at some point in the indefinite future with a single tribunal to be
established immediately. We think this is more effective and many of the
deputants called for this as well. It’s better than what the government is
proposing, in my view.
The Chair: Any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. Jackson: I just want to reinforce that I too came away from the public
hearings quite convinced that this was essential, so I will be supporting Mr.
Marchese’s motion. I have a similar one, but mine isn’t as fulsome as Mr.
Marchese’s, so I will definitely yield to his better wordsmithing and tell him
that I will support it for the same reasons.
Mr. Ramal: I believe that setting up another tribunal will duplicate the
services and add more expense. Also, I would say that people with disabilities
are already covered under the discrimination legislation and also under the
Human Rights Code. So we are protecting them, and they have the right and
ability to complain and send their complaint to the Human Rights Commission.
Plus, we believe the duplication in terms of a new tribunal would be a waste of
time and effort and also a waste of money. If we can focus our efforts on one
tribunal in order to achieve our goal, then settling complaints will be a lot
better. Also, the director would not be the person who would be appearing before the tribunal to defend the case.
The Chair: Any further debate? If there is none, I will now put the question.
Shall the motion carry?
Ayes: Jackson, Marchese.
Nays: Fonseca, Leal, Parsons, Ramal, Wynne.
The Chair: The motion does not carry.
2. Mr. Jackson: I guess what I’m trying to get at is that we don’t want multiple
tribunals, which currently exist in this legislation; we feel that there should
be one. It’s almost like having multiple human rights commissions.
You go to one commission, you have a specialty in that area and they deal with
your ruling. That’s kind of what we were trying to achieve here. This is after
the work of the standards committee is completed, people aren’t happy with the
consensus and the government’s regulations, and they want to appeal them. That’s why I think it should be one august body that is very capable to handle the
work.
Ms. Wynne: I just want to be clear what we’re talking about here, because it’s
my understanding that under section 26, the appeal that we’re talking about is
an appeal of a compliance order. So someone is under an order to comply and can appeal that order to a tribunal. It’s not about accessibility for individuals.
That’s not the kind of appeal we’re talking about. Can I get some clarification
about that, that those individual appeals could still go to the Human Rights
Commission?
Ms. Hewson: You’re correct, Ms. Wynne. These are appeals on whether a regulation or standard has been complied with or a report has been made.
Ms. Wynne: So it would be the person under the order —
The Chair: Excuse me —
Mr. Marchese: If I could encourage people to speak clearly into the mike. I
can’t hear very well.
The Chair: I would ask that you repeat what you answered, and then I’ll go back
to you, Ms. Wynne.
Ms. Hewson: I beg your pardon. Yes, Ms. Wynne is quite right that these are
appeals from an order of the director.
1640
Ms. Wynne: So it’s the organization or the person who has been ordered to comply who would be appealing to the tribunal; it’s not someone appealing the
accessibility of a building or a service.
Ms. Hewson: That’s correct.
Ms. Wynne: So then, by being as clear as possible with standards, we’re trying
to cut down the number of appeals of this nature that there would be. There is
still recourse for individuals who feel that accessibility is not adequate, with
the Human Rights Commission. Is that correct?
Ms. Hewson: That is correct.
Ms. Wynne: OK. Thank you. That’s the reason I won’t be supporting this
amendment.
. On December 10, 2001, the Liberal Party, while in opposition, tabled a series
of amendments to the Conservative Government’s Bill 125, the proposed Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001. While in opposition, Dalton McGuinty made a written election promise on April 7, 2003 to enact a new, strong and effective
disability law. He pledged that: “The legislation and regulations will include
timelines, standards and a mechanism for effective enforcement, and, at a
minimum, will reflect the substance of amendments to the Conservative bill
offered by the Liberal party in the fall of 2001.”
The Liberals’ Fall, 2001 amendments included several provisions that would
expand the investigation and enforcement mandates of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. These included the following: (Underlining is added.)
1. I MOVE that section 10 of the Bill be struck out and the following
substituted:
Ministry barrier-free plans
10. (1) Each ministry has the duty to ensure that the funding, services,
programs, practices, legislation and regulations it administers and that its
workplace are free of barriers through the development and implementation of
barrier-free plans to identify, remove and prevent barriers within the time
period specified in regulations that the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall
make, in consultation with persons with disabilities and others, within six
months after this section comes into force.
Contents of plan
(2) A barrier-free plan shall include,
(a) the comprehensive identification, removal and prevention of barriers to
persons with disabilities in the Acts and regulations administered by the
ministry and in the ministry’s policies, programs, practices and services, as
well as the ministry’s workplace;
(b) specific action steps and time lines for performing the duties set out in
clause (a) and, except if it is not practical, a statement of who is responsible
within the ministry for those duties;
(c) a report on the measures the ministry has taken to identify, remove and
prevent barriers to persons with disabilities;
(d) a statement whether the ministry has met its obligations set out in the plan
for the year in which the plan is developed and, if not, the particulars of and
reasons for non-compliance;
(e) a description of the measures in place to ensure that the ministry assesses
its proposals for Acts, regulations, policies, programs, practices and services
to determine their impact on removing and preventing barriers against persons
with disabilities and a statement of who is responsible for the measures;
(f) a report on the Acts, regulations, policies, programs, practices and
services reviewed during the year in which the plan is developed, the
recommendations made to ensure that they are barrier-free, and whether the
recommendations were adopted;
(g) a list of the Acts, regulations, policies, programs, practices and services
that the ministry will review in the year after the year in which the plan is
developed to identify barriers to persons with disabilities and a statement of
who is responsible for the review;
(h) a description of the specific measures that the ministry intends to take in
the year after the year in which the plan is developed to identify, remove and
prevent barriers to persons with disabilities; and
(i) all other information that the regulations prescribe for the purpose of the
plan.
Process for developing plan
(3) In developing and implementing its barrier-free plan, a ministry shall
consult with the Barrier-Free Council of Ontario, the Barrier-Free Disability
Directorate of Ontario and with persons with disabilities who may be affected by
the plan.
Availability to the public
(4) A ministry shall make its barrier-free plan available to the public in an
accessible format within 10 days of the plan receiving the signatures of the
ministry’s minister and deputy minister.
Enforcement of plan
(5) The Ontario Human Rights Commission shall review all barrier-free plans for
which it has reasonable grounds to believe that a ministry has not complied with
the plan and in conducting the review the Commission has all of the
investigation powers that it has for investigating a complaint under the Human
Rights Code.
2. I MOVE that the Bill be amended by adding the following sections:
Government obligations
20.1 (1) This Act binds the Crown.
Deadline for compliance
(2) Despite anything in this Act or the regulations, the Government of Ontario
shall comply with its barrier-free obligations described in this Act within five
years after subsection (1) comes into force for the purposes of the Ontario
Government becoming barrier-free for persons with disabilities within that
period of five years.
Enforcement
20.2 (1) The Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Ontario Human Rights board of inquiry have jurisdiction with respect to compliance with this Act and
enforcement under this Act and for that purpose have the necessary authority and jurisdiction under the Human Rights Code.
Funding request
(2) Within three months after subsection (1) comes into force, the Minister of
Finance shall introduce in the Assembly a bill that provides for the additional
funding that the Ontario Human Rights Commission requires to fulfill adequately
its responsibilities under subsection (1).
Conflict
20.3 This Act prevails in the event of a conflict between it and any other Act
or a regulation, by-law or any policy which guarantees lesser rights to persons
with disabilities.
3. I MOVE that section 103.1 of the Legislative Assembly Act, as set out in
section 27 of the Bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
Barrier-free plan
103.1 (1) Each year, the Speaker shall prepare and implement a barrier-free
plan.
Contents
(2) The barrier-free plan shall address the identification, removal and
prevention of barriers to persons with disabilities in the Legislative Chamber
and the other parts of the Legislative Building that are under the Speaker’s
control and in the policies, programs, practices and services of the Assembly.
Same
(3) The barrier-free plan shall include, with respect to the Legislative
Chamber, the other parts of the Legislative Building that are under the
Speaker’s control and the policies, programs, practices and services of the
Assembly,
(a) the comprehensive identification, removal and prevention of barriers to
persons with disabilities;
(b) a report on the measures the Speaker has taken to identify, remove and
prevent barriers to persons with disabilities;
(c) the measures in place to ensure that the Speaker assesses his or her
proposals for policies, programs, practices and services to determine their
effect on accessibility for persons with disabilities;
(d) a list of the policies, programs, practices and services that the Speaker
will review in the coming year in order to identify barriers to persons with
disabilities; and
(e) the measures that the Speaker intends to take in the coming year to
identify, remove and prevent barriers to persons with disabilities.
Process for developing plan
(4) In developing and implementing the barrier-free plan, the Speaker shall
consult with the Barrier-Free Council of Ontario, the Barrier-Free Disability
Directorate of Ontario and with persons with disabilities who may be affected by
the plan.
Availability to the public
(5) The Speaker shall make his or her barrier-free plan available to the public
in an accessible format within 10 days of the plan receiving the signature of
the Speaker.
Enforcement of plan
(6) The Ontario Human Rights Commission shall review the barrier-free plan if it
has reasonable grounds to believe that the Speaker has not complied with the
plan and in conducting the review the Commission has all of the investigation
powers that it has for investigating a complaint under the Human Rights Code.
Barrier-free deadline
(7) Despite anything in this section, the Speaker shall ensure that the
Legislative Chamber and the other parts of the Legislative Building that are
under the Speaker’s control are barrier-free within five years after subsection
(1) comes into force.
Definition
(8) In this section,
“barrier” has the same meaning as in the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001.
. Section 41 of the AODA 2005 provides:
41. (1) Within four years after this section comes into force, the Lieutenant
Governor in Council shall, after consultation with the Minister, appoint a
person who shall undertake a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of this
Act and the regulations and report on his or her findings to the Minister. 2005,
c. 11, s. 41 (1).
Consultation
(2) A person undertaking a review under this section shall consult with the
public and, in particular, with persons with disabilities. 2005, c. 11, s. 41
(2).
Contents of report
(3) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), a report may include
recommendations for improving the effectiveness of this Act and the regulations.
2005, c. 11, s. 41 (3).
Tabling of report
(4) The Minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council
and shall cause the report to be laid before the Assembly if it is in session
or, if not, at the next session. 2005, c. 11, s. 41 (4).
Further review
(5) Within three years after the laying of a report under subsection (4) and
every three years thereafter, the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall, after
consultation with the Minister, appoint a person who shall undertake a further
comprehensive review of the effectiveness of this Act and the regulations. 2005,
c. 11, s. 41 (5).
Same
(6) Subsections (2), (3) and (4) apply with necessary modifications to a review
under
. Section 14(5) of the current Code provides:
14(5) Subsection (2) does not apply to a special programme implemented by the
Crown or an agency of the Crown.
ENDNOTES
Attorney General, Minister Statement, Introduction of Bill 107, Apr. 26, 06
Section 46.1 of Bill 107 provides;
46.1 (1) The Minister may enter into agreements with prescribed persons or
entities for the purposes of providing legal services and such other services as
may be prescribed to applicants or other parties to a proceeding before the
Tribunal.
(2) An agreement under subsection (1) may provide for the payment for the
services by the Ministry.”
Attorney General, Minister Statement, Introduction of Bill 107, Apr. 26, 06
Attorney General, Minister Statement, Introduction of Bill 107, Apr. 26, 06
Ministry of the Attorney General, Bill 107 Backgrounder, Apr. 26, 06
Attorney General, Minister Statement, Introduction of Bill 107, Apr. 26, 06
Attorney General, Question Period in the Legislature on Apr. 10, 2006
Ontario Human Rights Commission’s website, under the heading: “Chief
Commissioner clarifies that statements regarding direct access are inaccurate”,
posted Apr. 13, 2006
Attorney General, Question Period in the Legislature on Apr. 10, 2006
x Organizations which have said they opposed the direction of the Government’s
plans announced on February 20, 2006 (and which have called for public
consultations before a bill is introduced) include:
Disabled Women’s Network of Ontario
African Canadian Legal Clinic of Ontario
Chinese Canadian National Council, Toronto Chapter
Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants
South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario
Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic
National Anti-Racism Council of Canada
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Alliance
Canadian Arab Federation
Autism Society of Ontario
Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations
Multiple Sclerosis Society
League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada
Ontario Association of the Deaf
Bob Rumball Centre for the Deaf
The Canadian Hearing Society
Canadian Paraplegic Association
Canadian National Institute for the Blind
Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians
Community Living Ontario
Thunder Bay & District Injured Workers’ Support Group
Urban Alliance on Race Relations
Operation Black Vote Canada
Aboriginal Legal Clinic
Canadian Race Relations Foundation
Community and Legal Aid Services Program, Osgoode Hall Law School
Older Women’s Network
National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women of Canada
Native Canadian Centre of Toronto
xi Attorney General, Minister Statement, Second Reading debates on Bill 107, May
8, 2006
Ontario Human Rights Commission 2006 statistics,
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en_text/news/e_may-06-facts.shtml
Attorney General, Minister Statement, Second Reading debates on Bill 107, May 8,
2006
Attorney General, Minister Statement, Introduction of Bill 107, Apr. 26, 06
Attorney General, Minister Statement, Second Reading debates on Bill 107, May 8,
2006
Section 41 provides in material part:
Dismissal of proceeding without hearing
“41. (1) The Tribunal may dismiss a proceeding, in whole or in part, without a
hearing, if,
(a) the proceeding is frivolous, vexatious or is commenced in bad faith;
(b) the proceeding relates to matters that are outside the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal;
(c) some aspect of the statutory requirements for bringing the proceeding has
not been met;
(d) the application is made under section 35 and the facts alleged in the
application, even if true, do not disclose an infringement of a right of the
applicant under Part I;
(e) the application is made under section 36 and the facts alleged in the
application, even if true, do not disclose infringements of a right under Part I
that are of a systemic nature;
(f) the application is made under subsection 45.1 (3) and the facts alleged in
the application, even if true, do not disclose a contravention of a settlement;
or
(g) the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately
dealt with the substance of an application.”
Section 34 provides in material part:
34. (1) The Tribunal may make rules governing the practice and procedure before
it.
(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the rules may,
(a) provide that the Tribunal is not required to hold a hearing;
(b) limit the extent to which the Tribunal is required to give full opportunity
to the parties to present their evidence and to make their submissions; …”
Attorney General, Minister Statement, Second Reading debates on Bill 107, May 8,
2006
Attorney General, Minister Statement, Second Reading debates on Bill 107, May 8,
2006
Section 33, which Bill 107 repeals, provides:
“33.–(1) Subject to section 34, the Commission shall investigate a complaint
and endeavour to effect a settlement.
Investigation
(2) An investigation by the Commission may be made by a member or employee of
the Commission who is authorized by the Commission for the purpose.
Powers on investigation
(3) A person authorized to investigate a complaint may,
(a) enter any place, other than a place that is being used as a dwelling, at any
reasonable time, for the purpose of investigating the complaint;
(b)request the production for inspection and examination of documents or things
that are or may be relevant to the investigation;
(c) upon giving a receipt therefore, remove from a place documents produced in
response to a request under clause (b) for the purpose of making copies thereof
or extracts there from and shall promptly return them to the person who produced or furnished them; and
(d) question a person on matters that are or may be relevant to the complaint
subject to the person’s right to have counsel or a personal representative
present during such questioning, and may exclude from the questioning any person who may be adverse in interest to the complainant.
Entry into dwellings
(4) A person investigating a complaint shall not enter a place that is being
used as a dwelling without the consent of the occupier except under the
authority of a warrant issued under subsection (8).
Denial of entry
(5) Subject to subsection (4), if a person who is or may be a party to a
complaint denies entry to any place, or instructs the person investigating to
leave the place, or impedes or prevents an investigation therein, the Commission
may refer the matter to the Tribunal or may authorize an employee or member to apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant to enter under subsection (8).
Refusal to produce
(6) If a person refuses to comply with a request for production of documents or
things, the Commission may refer the matter to the Tribunal, or may authorize an employee or member to apply to a justice of the peace for a search warrant under subsection (7).
Warrant for search
(7) Where a justice of the peace is satisfied on evidence upon oath or
affirmation that there are in a place documents that there is reasonable ground
to believe will afford evidence relevant to the complaint, he or she may issue a
warrant in the prescribed form authorizing a person named in the warrant to
search a place for any such documents, and to remove them for the purposes of
making copies thereof or extracts therefrom, and the documents shall be returned promptly to the place from which they were removed.
Warrant for entry
(8) Where a justice of the peace is satisfied by evidence upon oath or
affirmation that there is reasonable ground to believe it is necessary that a
place being used as a dwelling or to which entry has been denied be entered to
investigate a complaint, he or she may issue a warrant in the prescribed form
authorizing such entry by a person named in the warrant.
Execution of warrant
(9) A warrant issued under subsection (7) or (8) shall be executed at reasonable
times as specified in the warrant.
Expiration of warrant
(10) Every warrant shall name a date on which it expires, which shall be a date
not later than fifteen days after it is issued.
Obstruction
(11) No person shall hinder, obstruct or interfere with a person in the
execution of a warrant or otherwise impede an investigation under this Act.
Idem
(12) Subsection (11) is not contravened by a refusal to comply with a request
for the production of documents or things made under clause (3)(b).
Admissibility of copies
(13) Copies of, or extracts from, documents removed from premises under clause
(3)(c) or subsection (7) certified as being true copies of the originals by the
person who made them, are admissible in evidence to the same extent as, and have the same evidentiary value as, the documents of which they are copies or
extracts.”
Section 32 of the Code now provides in material part:
32.–(1) Where a person believes that a right of the person under this Act has
been infringed, the person may file with the Commission a complaint in a form
approved by the Commission.
(2) The Commission may initiate a complaint by itself or at the request of any
person.
Section 36 of Bill 107 provides:
36. (1) The Commission may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 43
if the Commission is of the opinion that,
(a) there are infringements of rights under Part I that are of a systemic nature
and that the Commission has not been able to adequately address under Part III;
(b) an order under section 43 could address the systemic issues; and
(c) it would be in the public interest to make an application under this
subsection….
(3) An application made by the Commission does not affect the right of a person
to make an application under section 35 in respect of the same matter.
Section 43 of the Bill provides:
43. On an application under section 36, the Tribunal may make an order directing any party to the application to do anything that, in the opinion of the
Tribunal, the party ought to do to promote compliance with this Act in respect
of future practices, if the Tribunal determines that any one or more of the
parties to the application have infringed a right under Part I and that the
infringements are of a systemic nature.”
The Disability Accessibility directorate” was created under the Ontarians with
Disabilities Act 2001. The McGuinty Government revamped and expanded its mandate one year ago under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2005.
Attorney General, Minister Statement, Second Reading debates on Bill 107, May 8,
2006
Section 38 of Bill 107 provides:
38. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Statutory Powers Procedure Act applies to
a proceeding before the Tribunal.
Conflict
(2) In the event of a conflict, this Act, the regulations and the Tribunal rules
prevail over the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, despite section 32 of that
Act.” See also s. 41 of Bill 107.
Attorney General, Minister Statement, Second Reading debates on Bill 107, May 8,
2006
Attorney General, Minister Statement, Second Reading debates on Bill 107, May 8,
2006
Ontario Human Rights Commission Annual Report, 2004-2005