Submission to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario – Proposed Changes to the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure

June 5, 2026

Introduction

ARCH Disability Law Centre welcomes the opportunity to provide written submissions on the proposed changes to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal’s (Tribunal) Rules of Procedure. We have reviewed the proposed changes, and attended the Town Hall. We are in agreement with the Tribunal that the current process requires review and updates in order to ensure a fair, just, and expeditious proceeding. However, we are of the view that some of these changes will favour expediency over fairness, and will have a disproportionate negative impact on applicants. We also believe there are further problems that exist in the Tribunal that will not be resolved with these rule changes. We will be covering those in our submissions with the goal of having the Tribunal turn its mind to these areas in considering further changes to the Rules of Procedure and the Practice Directions.

A. About ARCH

ARCH is a specialty legal clinic dedicated to defending and advancing the equality rights, entitlements, fundamental freedoms and inclusion of low-income persons with disabilities in Ontario. As part of its work, ARCH routinely represents applicants with disabilities appearing before the Tribunal at every stage of the process who allege discrimination on disability grounds. ARCH also consistently provides summary legal advice and information to unrepresented Applicants with disabilities throughout Ontario regarding every stage of the human rights process through ARCH’s Summary Advice and Referral service. Thus, ARCH’s experience in representing clients with disabilities at the Tribunal offers relevant knowledge and insight in considering the proposed Rule changes.

B. RULES OF PROCEDURE

Rule 13: Notice of Intention to dismiss

Reasons should be provided for issuance of Notice of Intention to Dismiss

The proposed amendment to Rule 13 provides that the Tribunal will advise the applicant only of the jurisdictional issue(s) requiring submissions. Under the current rules, the Tribunal is required to set out the reasons for the intended dismissal. It is unclear how much information the Tribunal will provide regarding the basis for issuing the Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID), or the specific issues on which the parties are expected to make submissions.

These changes may create significant challenges for applicants, particularly those who are self represented. Without a clear explanation of the concerns giving rise to the NOID, applicants may be left to speculate about what additional information, particulars, or evidence the Tribunal considers necessary to determine whether the application should proceed.

ARCH is concerned that these changes will signal to Tribunal Members and reviewing courts that the Tribunal is required to provide less explanation when issuing a NOID. By removing the requirement to provide reasons for the intended dismissal, the amendment risks normalizing a practice in which applicants receive less information about the basis for the Tribunal’s concerns.

These changes may also reduce the ability of reviewing courts to assess whether a NOID has been appropriately issued.

The Tribunal providing sufficient detail about the basis for a proposed dismissal is necessary to ensure procedural fairness and to enable meaningful participation in the process. It also assists the Tribunal in meeting its obligation under the Ontario Human Rights Code to ensure that it has an adequate evidentiary record before making a fair and equitable determination regarding the application.

Recommendation

We recommend that the Tribunal ensure that all Notices of Intent to Dismiss that are issued provide sufficient details on the reasons for issuing the Notice, and specifics on what matters need to be addressed by the parties. This recommendation will ensure that the Tribunal has fulsome submissions necessary to make a fair and equitable decision.

Adequate Time to Respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss

As part of its proposed amendments to Rule 13, the Tribunal intends to reduce the time available for parties to respond to a NOID from 30 days to 28 days. We are concerned that this change will further limit the already short period available to respond to what are often complex jurisdictional issues.

A NOID may raise difficult legal questions requiring applicants to gather additional information, review relevant case law, and prepare detailed submissions addressing the Tribunal’s concerns. For applicants who are self represented, this process may also involve seeking legal advice or representation. Obtaining legal assistance can take time, and a shorter response period may create unnecessary barriers to responding to the NOID.

During the Tribunal’s town hall consultation, it was explained that the rationale for reducing the timeline from 30 days to 28 days is that a 28-day period will more consistently result in filing deadlines falling on weekdays, thereby reducing concerns about deadlines occurring on weekends. While we understand this administrative objective, we do not believe it justifies reducing the time available for parties to respond.

A modest increase in the response period would better balance administrative efficiency with procedural fairness and access to justice considerations.

Recommendation

We recommend that the Tribunal provide parties with 35 days to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. A 35-day timeline would continue to ensure that, in the vast majority of cases, filing deadlines fall on weekdays while also providing parties with sufficient time to obtain legal advice, gather relevant information, and prepare fulsome submissions addressing the Tribunal’s jurisdictional concerns.

Improper Use of Notices of Intent to Dismiss to Address Backlog

ARCH is concerned about the Tribunal’s use of NOIDs as a tool to address the current backlog of applications. The proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure would permit the Tribunal to issue a NOID after pleadings have been completed and after the parties have participated in mediation. If the Tribunal identifies a potential jurisdictional issue, that issue should be addressed during the preliminary review of the Application, through use of a NOID.

Where a respondent believes that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction, the respondent already has procedural mechanisms available to raise that issue. In particular, respondents may bring a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking dismissal of the Application on jurisdictional grounds. Moreover, the Tribunal has other options within the current system to address jurisdictional issues following the pleading stage. Further, it is unclear why the Tribunal is using NOIDs rather than other processes, creating further concern as to the proposed amendments. Issuing a NOID after an application has been accepted for processing will lead to unnecessary confusion. The existence of these processes makes it unnecessary for the Tribunal to issue a NOID after an application has been provided to the Respondent.

During the Tribunal’s Town Hall consultation, ARCH asked why the Tribunal would retain the authority to issue a NOID after mediation had concluded. The response provided was that the Tribunal has a large number of applications within its system and requires the ability to issue a NOID where, upon further review, it identifies a jurisdictional issue.

This explanation raises concerns about the purpose of the proposed amendment. It suggests that the authority to issue a NOID at later stages of a proceeding is being sought, at least in part, to facilitate the review of older applications and address the Tribunal’s backlog. ARCH submits that backlog reduction is not an appropriate basis for expanding the Tribunal’s authority to issue NOIDs at later stages of a proceeding. The purpose of a NOID is to address clear jurisdictional deficiencies identified at the earliest stage possible, namely during the Tribunal’s preliminary review of an application.

Recommendation

A NOID should not be used as a backlog management tool. Its use should be limited to jurisdictional issues identified during the Tribunal’s preliminary review of an application. More specifically, the Rules should state that NOIDs must not be used after the mediation has occurred. This recommendation does not restrict the Tribunal from addressing jurisdictional issues through other processes, rather it ensures that the NOIDs are contained to its purpose, as preliminary screening tool.

Rule 15: Mediation

The Tribunal has proposed amendments to Rule 15, including the addition of Rule 15.9, which would require an applicant to file a Form 25 within 14 days following mediation where the matter has settled. The proposed Rule further provides that where a Form 25 is not filed within that timeframe, the Tribunal may administratively close the Application.

ARCH is concerned about the prospect of the Tribunal closing an application without first providing notice to the parties of its intention to do so. While settled matters should be formally concluded, there may be circumstances where a Form 25 is not filed within the prescribed timeline due to oversight, delays in finalizing settlement terms, difficulties obtaining instructions, or other administrative issues. In such circumstances, the administrative closure of an Application may occur even though the parties are actively working to complete the settlement process.

More broadly, this proposed amendment raises a general concern regarding situations in which the Tribunal may administratively close or dismiss an application without first notifying the parties of its intended action. Providing notice before closing or dismissing an application would allow parties to address any outstanding issues, provide missing information, or explain any delay before the Tribunal takes a final step that affects the status of the proceeding.

Recommendation

ARCH recommends that, before administratively closing or dismissing an application in circumstances where there is currently no built-in notice period, the Tribunal shall provide parties with a written notice and a minimum of 14 days to respond. This notice should identify the basis for the proposed closure or dismissal and provide the parties with an opportunity to address the issue before a final decision is made.

C. PRACTICE DIRECTIONS

Practice Direction on Mandatory Mediation

ARCH is concerned about the provisions in the Practice Direction on Mandatory Mediation regarding the confidentiality of communications between a party and the mediator. The Practice Direction provides that a mediator may share information provided by one party with the other party unless the party specifically indicates that the information is confidential.

This approach places the onus on parties to identify what information should remain confidential. ARCH is concerned that many parties, particularly those who are self represented, may not fully understand this requirement or may assume that communications with the mediator are confidential unless expressly authorized for disclosure. As a result of this approach, parties may be reluctant to engage in open and candid discussions with the mediator out of concern that information they provide may later be shared with the other party.

Mediation is most effective when parties can communicate openly with the mediator about their concerns, interests, and potential options for resolution. Requiring parties to proactively identify confidential information may undermine this objective and create uncertainty regarding the confidentiality of discussions that occur during the mediation process.

Recommendation

ARCH recommends that the Practice Direction be amended to provide that information communicated by a party to a mediator is confidential unless the party expressly consents to the disclosure of specific information to the other party. This approach would help ensure that parties can engage openly and candidly with the mediator without concern that their communications will be disclosed without their expressed consent.

D. PROCEDURAL DELAYS

Request for an Order During Proceedings

While not addressed in the proposed amendments, ARCH wishes to raise a significant concern regarding delays in the Tribunal’s adjudication of Requests for an Order During Proceedings (RFOPs).

ARCH has observed a growing pattern of lengthy delays in the Tribunal issuing decisions on RFOPs. In many cases, the determination of an RFOP is necessary before the parties can meaningfully proceed to the next stage of the Tribunal process. As a result, delays in adjudicating RFOPs can effectively place Applications on hold for months or years. By way of example, ARCH filed an RFOP seeking to amend an Application in June 2024. Two years later the Tribunal has yet to issue a decision on that request, such a delay is unreasonable.

ARCH recognizes that the Tribunal continues to face resource and backlog challenges. However, delays of this magnitude undermine timely access to justice and may contribute to further inefficiencies within the Tribunal’s system. ARCH therefore encourages the Tribunal to consider measures to ensure that RFOPs are addressed within a reasonable timeframe.

Recommendation

ARCH recommends that the Tribunal establish service standards for the review of Requests for Orders During Proceedings and publicly report on its compliance with those standards. At a minimum, the Tribunal should ensure that RFOPs are reviewed within a reasonable timeframe and that parties receive updates where a request cannot be addressed promptly. Applications should not remain stalled for extended periods while awaiting review of a procedural request.

E. Conclusion

We appreciate the opportunity to provide submissions on the various to the Rules of Procedure and Practice Directions. We welcome the opportunity to engage further in the HRTO’s “phased” consultations on changes to its Rules of Procedure. We strongly urge the Tribunal to consider our recommendations, which are made with the goal of ensuring meaningful access to the human rights process for persons with disabilities.