been interpreted by Ontario’s human rights tribunals and courts. In this respect
the Code is more flexible and dynamic than the AODA. As our understanding of
disability changes and new technologies are created, new forms of
accommodation are required. Code rights and obligations can be interpreted to
apply to emerging disabilities and future forms of accommodation.
Another important difference between the AODA and the Code is with respect to
enforcement. As described above, the AODA does not create any mechanisms
for individuals to seek enforcement of AODA requirements. The License Appeal
Tribunal will not hear complaints from individuals. Conversely, under the Code,
individuals can file a human rights application with the Human Rights Tribunal of
Ontario if they believe their human rights have been infringed. The Human
Rights Tribunal resolves individual applications by conducting mediations and/or
hearings. Individuals have attempted to bring their complaints regarding AODA
non-compliance to the Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal has clearly ruled
that it does not enforce the AODA.^54 However, where a failure to comply with an
Accessibility Standard can be framed as a breach of the Code, an application
may be brought to the Human Rights Tribunal.
Perhaps because the AODA framework is relatively new, some confusion exists
regarding the relationship between the AODA and the Code. A misperception
exists that the AODA sets out the full and complete set of legal obligations and
requirements which organizations must meet in order to ensure that they are
accessible to people with disabilities. Another way of stating this same
misperception is that compliance with the AODA guarantees compliance with the
Code and renders an organization immune from liability for discrimination. An
example of this is apparent in Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada, where the
(^54) Baltrano v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2010 HRTO 268 (CanLII). Bishop v.
Hamilton Entertainment and Convention Facilities Inc., 2012 HRTO 708 (CanLII).