AODA Alliance
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update
United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities
Website: www.aodaalliance.org
Email: aodafeedback@gmail.com
Twitter: @aodaalliance
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/aodaalliance
AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s December Metroland Column, CTV National News and CBC Cover the Appalling 8-Year Delay For a Blind Job Applicant to Win an Open-and-Shut Disability Discrimination Case at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
December 17, 2025
SUMMARY
It is inexcusable that it took a blind job applicant eight long years to win an open-and-shut case of disability discrimination in employment. This case is the focus of three articles, set out below:
- AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s December monthly column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications around Ontario.
- The November 29, 2025 report on CTV National News, and
- The December Report on CBC News.
The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act requires the Ontario Government to have led Ontario to be accessible to people with disabilities by 2025 in several areas, including employment. The Government passed a very weak Employment Accessibility Standard in 2011. On January 22, 2019, the Ford Government received the final report of the Government-appointed Employment Standards Development Committee with recommendations to strengthen that accessibility standard. The Ford Government was required to post that report upon receiving it.
In violation of the AODA, the Government did not make those final recommendations public until around February 2021, some two years later. The Government never enacted any revisions to the 2011 Employment Accessibility Standard to strengthen it. Therefore, people with disabilities facing employment barriers are left to fight cases individually at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
How You Can Help
- Send these news reports to your member of the Ontario Legislature. Urge them to push for an independent review of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and for dramatic reforms to this process.
- Learn about the AODA Alliance’s efforts to achieve equal opportunity for employees and job seekers with disabilities in the workplace, by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s employment page.
MORE DETAILS
Simcoe Today December 17, 2025
Originally posted at https://www.insidehalton.com/life/lepofsky-ohrt-column/article_2da45ffb-a05f-5df5-8399-707e8939f03f.html
Opinion
St. Catharines’ discrimination case illustrates dire need for independent review of Ontario’s human rights tribunal
It can take five years or more to get a hearing at the tribunal, no matter how uncomplicated the case, David Lepofsky writes.
By David Lepofsky
David Lepofsky is chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.
In 2017, a blind St. Catharines resident with two computer-related diplomas applied for a job in a local call centre. His application was turned down. He filed a complaint of disability discrimination with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
Eight long years later, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ruled that he was the victim of unlawful disability discrimination. The employer hadn’t fulfilled its duty to accommodate his disability in the workplace or its duty to investigate solutions.
It was open to the company under the Human Rights Code to present evidence proving that it was impossible to do anything more to fulfil these duties to him, without suffering “undue hardship.” The tribunal ruled that the company didn’t prove this defence.
This case does not break amazing new legal ground or establish bold new legal principles.
These duties have been deeply embedded in Ontario law for over a quarter century.
Yet many people with disabilities, parents of students with disabilities and people who work in organizations that have a duty to accommodate people with disabilities don’t know enough about the duty to accommodate.
To help, I shared an online talk on YouTube that gives an introductory explanation of the duty to accommodate people with disabilities.
This straightforward case was legally and factually simple — so why did it take the tribunal eight years?
The tribunal, administered by the Ontario government, is backlogged due to chronic underfunding and understaffing. Its rules of procedure, internal processes and administration are mired in inefficiencies. It is far from user-friendly.
Is this the result of a conscious government decision or staggering government neglect?
The province is, or should be, well aware of these problems — problems that are well known in the disability community and among lawyers.
It can take five years or more to get a hearing at the tribunal, no matter how uncomplicated the case.
If you have a child with a disability who cannot get their school board to properly accommodate their disability in kindergarten, it can take all the way until they are age-appropriate for Grade 5 or later before they can get this tribunal to deliver the classroom accommodation to which they are legally entitled.
Some who suffer clearly unlawful discrimination may understandably choose not to bother filing a claim at all.
Moreover, witnesses’ memories can fade over five years. Delayed testimony may not come across as credible as it would at a much swifter hearing.
These protracted delays also can hurt public and private sector organizations that face discrimination complaints. Why would they want such allegations hanging over their heads for years?
The Ontario government needs to fix this.
It should appoint an arm’s-length, impartial person or panel, such as a retired judge, with expertise in human rights law, to conduct an independent review. It should review the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and the system for enforcing Ontario’s anti-discrimination legislation. It should make recommendations for reform.
In 2005, after we in the disability community advocated for a decade, the Ontario Legislature unanimously enacted the landmark Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA).
It was supposed to lead Ontario to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. Ontario missed that deadline due to a series of major failures by successive provincial governments to effectively implement and enforce that law.
The AODA was supposed to reduce the need for individuals with disabilities from having to go to the tribunal to battle against each disability barrier they face when trying to get a job, ride public transit, use our health care system or get a good education. We now suffer from a double governmental failure.
First, because the government isn’t effectively implementing and enforcing the AODA, we still need to take individual disability barriers to the tribunal. Second, when we do take those barriers to that tribunal, we encounter horrible delays and soul-crushing bureaucracy.
The good news? This is fixable. A government could just decide that it needs to be reformed. That would be a great way to start the upcoming new year.
David Lepofsky is a retired lawyer who chairs the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, and is a visiting professor of disability rights at the law schools at Western, Queen’s and the University of Ottawa.
CTV News November 29, 2025
Originally posted at https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/im-relieved-blind-ontario-man-awarded-28000-for-facing-discrimination/
Blind Ontario man awarded $28,000 after tribunal finds workplace discrimination
By Kamil Karamali
A blind man who won a human rights discrimination case speaks out. Kamil Karamali has his story.
A blind Ontario man has been awarded more than $28,000 in compensation and lost wages after the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decided a call-centre company took part in “discriminatory” action when it did not provide him with the tools needed to do his job.
“It was a real joy to read the decision, honestly,” said Erik Burggraaf, who has been blind since birth. “I’m happy about the decision. I’m relieved that it upholds the precedents. That’s the really important thing.”
Burggraaf, who lives in St. Catharines, Ontario, said he tried to apply for dozens of jobs in a two-year span nearly a decade ago, but he felt hopeful when he received an interview request from Convergy’s call centre in Welland, ON, for a sales associate position back in 2017.
He claimed that he told the employer in the interview process what he needed as a blind person to do his job — a Braille display and screen-reading computer software.
“They committed to providing the tools for work, but you wouldn’t provide the tools for work for a candidate that wasn’t suitable for the job — so at that point, you feel like you have the job because they’re looking at how to build a screen reader into their process,” said Burggraaf.
“But then they left a voicemail on my phone and just said we can’t do it — and that was it.”
In the HRTO hearing, the employer had claimed the software was not compatible with the computer systems the company was using at the call centre.
In the Oct. 17 decision, HRTO adjudicator Romona Gananathan said they were “…unable to find based on all of the evidence that the respondents met their substantive duty to accommodate the applicant, because they did not explore alternatives and costs of any programs that could have been adapted to meet the needs of their client and accommodate the worker.”
“Accordingly, the respondents’ decision not to hire the applicant as a result of his blindness is discriminatory under the Code,” reads the decision.”
Burggraaf said the decision upholds the precedent, “but the big thing that came out of this was that an applicant must be included in the fact-finding and discovery of what is or is not possible.”
Erik Burggraaf of St. Catharines, Ontario has been awarded more than $28,000 in compensation and lost wages after the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decided a call-centre company took part in ‘discriminatory’ action.
The HRTO awarded Burggraaf $20,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, and $8,472 for lost wages.
It also ordered the employers to develop new human rights and accommodation policies specifically addressing the hiring of blind applicants, with a focus on the interview process.
Unemployment rate of Canadians with disabilities a ‘national shame’
The most recent data from Statistics Canada says the Canadian unemployment rate for people with disabilities was 8.1 per cent, while the rate for those without disabilities was 5.6 per cent.
“The unemployment rate facing Canadians with disabilities is not only a national crisis, it’s a national shame — and it continues to this day.” said David Lepofsky, a blind disability advocate and retired lawyer. “The problem is a merger of barriers in the education system facing students with disabilities. If you can’t get a good education, you can’t get a good job.”
“To enforce the human rights code, you got to go to a tribunal yourself and fight your own case — and many people with disabilities won’t, added Lepofsky. ”And even if you do, you have to wait years and years and years, which is something that is ridiculous.”
Despite his eight-year wait to have his case heard and a decision to come down, Burggraaf hopes his story will inspire other people with disabilities to push back against discrimination in the workplace or during the hiring process.
“What I want people to do is, is to talk about it and to bring these types of things forward, because it turns out there is actually something you can do about it. And the more people who speak up, the faster we can change the state of things.”
The Convergy’s call-centre location in Welland, Ontario closed down in 2018 — with the company merging with another to form a new corporation called Concentrix.
CTV News sent an email request to Concentrix for an interview and comment related to this story, but did not hear back before the deadline.
CBC News December 9, 2025
Originally posted at https://www.cbc.ca/lite/story/9.7003158?feature=random
Blind St. Catharines, Ont., man awarded $28K after discriminatory hiring process and years-long tribunal wait
Diona Macalinga CBC News
Disability advocate and lawyer says long wait for a tribunal decision ‘is horrific, but not unusual’
Caption: Erik Burggraaf, who is blind, said Convergys, now Concentrix, made no attempt to ask about his accommodation needs after a job interview in 2017. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) found the company failed its duty to accommodate. (Diona Macalinga/CBC)
In August 2017, St. Catharines resident Erik Burggraaf made it through two interviews and a month-long wait before hearing back on a sales associate position at a Welland, Ont., call centre.
When the call finally came in, Burggraaf told CBC News, he felt “fatalistic” after hearing he didn’t get the job, despite Convergys, the company he applied to, saying “he was a qualified candidate.”
“I’ve probably applied to 30 to 40 call centre jobs in my life to at least a dozen different companies and I’ve never been able to land one,” said Burggraaf, who graduated with two diplomas in computer hardware and computer programming and analysis. “If I wanted an IT job, I would have to start at an entry-level position.”
In 2018, Burggraaf filed a human rights complaint against Convergys, now acquired by Concentrix. The wait for a decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) came to an end on Oct. 17 — seven years later and after he landed a job elsewhere.
The tribunal ordered the company to pay $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, as well as $8,472 for lost wages. The company was also ordered to develop accommodating hiring policies and accessible interview processes for blind candidates.
In the decision, tribunal member Romona Gananathan wrote the company “failed in their procedural duty to accommodate when they did not explore further accommodation solutions with the applicant.”
CBC News reached out to Concentrix for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.
With a resumé that listed experience in training and testing experience accessibility programs for organizations such as the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Burggraaf said the company “made no attempts to include [him] in any discussions related to [his] accommodations whatsoever.”
According to the decision, an IT operations employee at Convergys claimed to have tested trial versions and free screen readers — software that read on-screen information by speech or through a refreshable braille display.
Image | Braille keyboard
Caption: A refreshable braille display, which can be seen on the lower part of this keyboard, allows blind users to read information on their screen. (Shane Fowler/CBC)
The employee concluded none “adequately” worked nor was interactive with their customer relationship management software. Convergys also claimed the position requires being able to “independently navigate and use” AT&T’s proprietary software, their sole client.
Burggraaf said the company “did the most basic investigation … to prove their preconception that I couldn’t be placed in the job.”
‘Justice delayed can be justice denied’: advocate
A 2022 Statistics Canada report found that 6.9 per cent of Canada’s working age population with disabilities were unemployed — that is almost double the unemployment rate of those without disabilities.
However, many blind people go on to have successful careers in fields including video-game streaming, cosmetics or law, among others.
This Ontario teen inspired tactile makeup for blind beauty enthusiasts
How a blind man plays mainstream video games and the future of accessibility in games
David Lepofsky is a blind lawyer, now retired, and chairs the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance (AODA Alliance).
Image | David Lepofsky
Caption: David Lepofsky, chair of AODA Alliance, says the case is an example of ‘black letter law,’ where the employer, Convergys, had a clear legal duty to accommodate Burggraaf’s blindness, unless ‘undue hardship’ on the company made it impossible to do so. (Submitted by David Lepofsky)
He said the case is nothing new, having established no breakthroughs or new rights. It has, however, demonstrated a “fundamentally broken” human rights code enforcement process.
“You can’t get a decision until well after the office where you wanted to work has closed,” said Lepofsky.
“The event happened in 2017. It took eight years for the human rights tribunal to hold a hearing and then decide this case. That is horrific, but not unusual,” he said, pointing at the HRTO’s longstanding backlog and staffing shortage issues.
“Under our human rights law — again settled for decades — the employer had the duty to do both investigate solutions and accommodate unless it can prove that it was impossible to do anything more without undue hardship to the company,” said Lepofsky.
Gananathan wrote that Convergys “failed to pursue any accommodation options with their client [AT&T] who also had obligations under the code and may have had some solutions,” and also failed to consult accommodation experts such as the CNIB.
In 2021, Burggraaf got a job providing workers with disabilities adaptive tools at Shared Services Canada with a team, he says, that approaches situations involving accommodation “with an incredible degree of compassion.”
“I would like to see more of that in the private sector,” he said.