Submission to
The Canadian Human Rights Commission
January 30, 2025
55 University Avenue, 15th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5J 2H7
Phone: 416-482-8255 or 1-866-482-2724
TTY: 416-482-1254 or 1-866-482-2728
www.archdisabilitylaw.ca

 @ARCHDisability @ARCHDisabilityLawCentre
@ARCHDisabilityLaw @archdisabilitylaw.bsky.social

Table of Contents

A.	Introduction	3
B.	About ARCH	3
C.	Gaps in the Complaint Rules	4
1.	Accessibility and Disability-related Accommodations	4
2.	Forms Acceptable to the Commission and Filing Deadlines	5
D.	Implementation of Existing Rules	6
1.	Format of Documents and Filing Complaints	6
2.	Process Regarding Multiple Parties	7
3.	Assessment, Reports, and Written Reasons	7
4.	Disclosure of Documents to Complainants	8
E.	Conclusion	8

A.	Introduction
ARCH Disability Law Centre welcomes the opportunity to provide written submissions to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) regarding its Complaint Rules (the “Rules”). ARCH provides the following written submissions with the objective of assisting the Commission in making its process more accessible, fair, and efficient for all who need it, including complainants with disabilities, as well as complainants who are unrepresented. Over the years, ARCH has suggested several amendments to the Rules to improve accessibility of the complaint process from a disability-rights perspective. However, the current version of the Rules do not reflect the recommendations ARCH has repeatedly proposed to make the complaint process more accessible, fair, and efficient. Our recommendations fall under two broad categories: 1) gaps in the Rules and proposed updates; and 2) the implementation of the existing Rules.
B.	About ARCH
ARCH is a specialty community 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 often assists or represents applicants appearing before the Commission 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 Commission’s process through ARCH’s Summary Advice and Referral service. As a result, ARCH’s experience in representing clients with disabilities at the Commission offers relevant knowledge and insight into navigating the Commission’s process.
ARCH brings forward the particular perspective not only of persons with disabilities who have the privilege of legal representation, but also of those who appear before the Commission unrepresented. In this capacity, ARCH understands the particular accessibility issues raised by

our client communities, as well as advising unrepresented litigants with disabilities as to how to navigate the Commission’s process.
C.	Gaps in the Complaint Rules
1.	Accessibility and Disability-related Accommodations
In October 2019, ARCH made recommendations about the rule for requesting accommodation within the Commission’s complaints process. In particular, ARCH recommended that the Rules provide for a stand-alone rule which addresses accommodations and accessibility of the process. This new rule should communicate clearly to complainants the necessary information including how to request an accommodation, to whom the accommodation request should be made, when an accommodation request can be made, and confirmation that accommodation requests would be addressed in confidence. While we are pleased that the Commission has since created Rule 6, the rule defers crucial information to the Commission’s Accommodation Policy. In our view, the policy lacks crucial information about the accommodation process. It does not provide a separate, specific contact person for dealing with disability-related requests and there are still no provisions informing parties of alternatives to physical and electronic signatures.
ARCH previously requested transparency around how disability-related and other grounds- based accommodation requests are recorded. In response, CHRC reiterated its commitment to ensuring that participants with individual needs are provided the agreed upon accommodation throughout their participation in the complaints process. These updates are timely given that the Commission’s only public facing phone number is now monitored by Service Canada staff. Through our client services, ARCH has learned that complainants are experiencing additional barriers when requesting and obtaining accommodations as a result. Thus, it is more imperative than ever that the Commission concretely address disability-related needs in its Rules.

2.	Forms Acceptable to the Commission and Filing Deadlines
ARCH has repeatedly highlighted the risk of prejudice facing complainants when the format and filing requirements in Rules 7 and 8 cause the official filing date of their complaints to exceed the one-year limitation period. Specifically, ARCH recommended amending Rules 8.1 (and, at the time, 8.5) which stipulates that the Commission will consider the filing date to be when the final updated or revised version of the complaint is submitted, rather than the date on which it was first filed. Because Rules 7.1 to 7.4 set out specific, stringent criteria that a complaint must meet before it is accepted, they place a heavy burden on complainants. As a result, complainants risk finding themselves in the precarious position of having their complaint re-submitted, and accepted by the Commission, beyond the one year limitation period. In addition to giving Respondents the opportunity to raise delay arguments, the Rules discourage applicants from amending their documents to strengthen their application.
While the Commission recognized that a significant percentage of complaint forms that are submitted require additional information before they meet the criteria, the Rules still do not consider the filing date as the first date on which a complainant submits their complaint. This is particularly concerning given the barriers applicants have face when filing complaints with the Commission, which we outline in section D of these submissions.
According to the Commission, using the first date of filing as the filing date is not operationally feasible and that doing so would preclude the Initial Review process necessary to clarify the requirements, assist complainants in completing applications, and expedite the process with the view of reducing potential future delays. The Commission further assures ARCH that, where delays arise from its requests for additional information, it will discourage respondents from raising objections under section 41(1) (e). Additionally, the Commission notes it must consider whether a complainant’s disability prevents them from filing a complaint in a timely manner when deciding whether to accept the complaint.

We understand that the CHRC aims to deter amendments to incentivize complete complaints from the outset and reduce further delays. Notwithstanding this, ARCH’s concern is that the acceptable form criteria set out in section 7.2 coupled with the Commission’s position on filing dates burdens complainants and increases the likelihood that an unrepresented complainant will fall outside of the limitation period. This creates a barrier contrary to the Commission’s objective to be an accessible forum. Accordingly, ARCH strongly recommends that the filing deadlines be revised to indicate that the date on which a complaint is first received is the date of filing. Should a complaint form not fulfill all of the section 7.2 criteria, then the Commission may send it back to the complainant and request that it be amended so that procedural requirements are met without altering the original filing date. This will allow a complainant to preserve their limitation period while simultaneously ensuring that the Commission receives all of the information it requires to process a complaint.
D.	Implementation of Existing Rules
1.	Format of Documents and Filing Complaints
ARCH has learned of widespread difficulty filing complaints with the Commission. We have also experienced the barriers firsthand. Commission staff has provided contradictory directions, including providing us with multiple different email addresses, and fax numbers. We have had problems filing using the online complaint form, email, fax, and courier. In one instance, we filed a complaint three times, by three different methods, with no acknowledgment of receipt. While our clients had the benefit of counsel, the Commission’s delay and misdirection would have put an unrepresented complainant’s limitation period in jeopardy. The Rules clearly state the acceptable forms of filing. However, all forms of filing stipulated in the Rules must be accepted in practice and acknowledged by the Commission.

2.	Process Regarding Multiple Parties
The Commission’s usual complaint process, as described in Rule 7.1, is electronic. The online forms intended for use in the complaint process are not compatible with multiple complainants nor multiple respondents. While the Rules acknowledge that a complaint can have multiple complainants (see Rule 3.2), they do not expressly contemplate multiple respondents.
In any event, Commission’s process when a complaint has more than one complainant and/or respondent is not efficient nor sensible. In once instance, ARCH represented three complainants against four respondents. The Commission created 12 different files, one for each iteration of each individual complainant against each individual respondent. Though there was only one complaint, it was procedurally unmanageable since it was dealt with by multiple human rights officers and would result in 12 separate reports and decisions. This process also means that, in the case of a judicial review, the complainants must challenge 12 separate decisions in court. The Commission must ensure that multi-party complaints do not lead to procedural burdens falling on complainants.
3.	Assessment, Reports, and Written Reasons
Parties are entitled to written notice of Commission decisions by virtue of Rule 15.1. In ARCH’s practice, we have witnessed a concerning trend with respect to transparency and accountability in Commission decisions as well as reports. In particular, we have observed Commission decisions dismissing complaints and providing written decisions, but without providing reasoning as to how it came to its conclusions.
Another example relates to Rules 7.7 and 7.8. In one recent instance, the Commission made a referral to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. After that decision, the Commission determined it had not completed its assessment stage, further delaying all parties and leading to a situation where the respondent was permitted to make additional submissions to the

Commission following a decision to refer to the Tribunal.
4.	Disclosure of Documents to Complainants
Rule 7.6 lists the requirements for Response and Reply forms. It has been ARCH’s experience that, in practice, these Rules are inconsistently applied. In our practice, the Commission accepts forms from respondents which are longer than 20 pages, and therefore are not in forms acceptable to the Commission pursuant to the Rules. In one particularly disconcerting instance, the Commission failed to disclose respondent filings to the complainants but relied on those filings to dismiss the complaint. The Commission must ensure it enforces its Rules and that complainants receive the documents to which they are entitled in a timely manner.
E.	Conclusion
ARCH wishes to thank the Commission for the opportunity to provide written feedback on its Rules. We trust that the recommendations will be of assistance in the Commission’s attempts to streamline its process and in its efforts to provide clarity and transparency to any party filing a complaint. Considering that the majority of the complaints filed with the Commission are based on the ground of disability, it is imperative that the Rules contemplate and communicate its accessibility process to ensure that all can participate on an equal basis.
We understand that the Commission welcomes feedback on its Rules. We wish to stress, however, that even when the Rules are clear and comprehensive, parties rely on their proper implementation. If ARCH can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office.