A. Public Interest RemediesThe Tribunal has the jurisdiction to award systemic remedies regardless of whether
these are expressly sought by the applicant.^162 It is good practice, nonetheless, to
remind the Tribunal of its remedial powers and responsibilities to ensure that the aims of
the Code are realized through its decisions.
In 2012, the Human Rights Legal Support Centre reported that 70% of its successful
decisions before the HRTO and about 75% of its settlements achieved a public interest
remedy.^163
A few examples of public interest remedies include:
- requiring respondents to undertake training regarding human rights, the duty to
accommodate and discrimination; - requiring respondents to post notices regarding the Code in public places;
- requiring respondents to retrofit buildings or services to ensure that they are
accessible;^164 - requiring respondent to make a donation to a community organization selected
by the applicant;^165 - requiring respondent to consult with the disability community regarding
accessibility issues;^166
(^162) Ibid. at s. 45.2(b).
(^163) HRLSC Jan 9 2012 Main disclosure, available online: AODA Alliance
<http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong- 164 effective-aoda/01232012.asp> at 13.
See for example: Lepofsky v. Toronto Transit Commission, supra note 106; Austin v. Clayton
Lakeside-Beaton Inc. and MazenMatar, 2011 HRTO 31 where the Tribunal ordered a trailer park to
provide accessible washrooms and ensure there was a ramp to a general store; Jakobek v. Toronto
Standard Condo Corp No. 1626 2100 HRTO 1901 where the Tribunal ordered a condominium
corporation to ensure that the condominium’s by-laws specifically allow mobility assistive devices to be
parked in the garage. 165
166 Jakobek, supra note 164.^
Hughes v. Canadian Human Rights Commission and Elections Canada, supra note 60. The Canadian
Human Rights Tribunal ordered Elections Canada to, within 6 months of the decision, create a plan for
greater consultation with voters with disabilities regarding accessibility issues.