Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that at the time of the hearing the Town had not
fully accommodated people with hearing loss in its Council Chambers and
meeting rooms. As a result the Town was ordered to review its policies and
complaint procedures related to discrimination on the basis of disability and
ensure that these complied with the Code.^58 Individuals whose disabilities have
not been accommodated appropriately are entitled to file human rights
applications and request systemic remedies, despite the fact that the respondent
may have implemented its AODA requirements.
In McMahon v. U-Haul Co. the Human Rights Tribunal ordered the respondent to
produce records of trainings it had conducted under the AODA. The Tribunal
found that these documents were relevant to the issues in the Application,
including the issue of remedy.^59
VII. Impact of the AODA on Other Legislation
The AODA was used by the Superior Court as a tool for statutory interpretation of
a provision of the Retail Sales Tax Act. The issue in the case was whether the
purchase of low floor buses by Wheel-Trans fell within a statutory tax exemption
for equipment designed solely for the use of people with disabilities. The Court
cited the AODA, together with the Code and s.15 of the Charter as evidence that
society has resolved to address and remove barriers to accessibility for people
with disabilities. The Court found that the Retail Sales Tax Act must be
interpreted so as to advance these goals.^60
In a similar vein, the AODA was cited by an Ontario Grievance Settlement Board
to determine what was appropriate under a collective agreement. A dispute
arose between ODSP workers and the Ministry of Community and Social
(^58) Palangio v. The Corporation of the Town of Cochrane, 2011 HRTO 1491 (CanLII).
(^59) McMahon v. U-Haul Co. (Canada) Ltd., 2012 HRTO 543 (CanLII).
(^60) Toronto Transit Commission v. Ontario (Finance), 2008 CanLII 67910 (ON SC).