Skip to main content

Health and well-being

Printer-friendly version

20th anniversary of Ontario’s accessibility legislation

In a public statement published in June 2025, the OHRC marked the 20th anniversary of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) taking effect. All parties of the Legislature unanimously passed this ground-breaking law, setting 2025 as the target for achieving accessibility across the province. While progress has been made, the goal has not yet been fully achieved, and long‑standing barriers, especially in the built environment, continue to persist.

Ontario has made significant progress regulating standards that prevent new barriers in transportation services, information and communications, customer service, employee accommodations, and design of public spaces. Stakeholder committees mandated under the AODA to review these standards for improvements every five years submitted their respective final recommendations between 2018 and 2025. These recommendations have not yet resulted in proposed amendments.

Ontario also recognized standards are needed in other areas. AODA stakeholder committees were struck to develop accessibility standards for elementary and postsecondary education, and healthcare – essential services for everyone. These committees submitted their respective final recommendations in 2022, however, proposed AODA regulations have not yet been introduced.

New opportunities exist for Ontario to speed up what the Honourable David C. Onley called in his review report, “the glacial pace of change towards accessibility.” Much progress has been made under the Accessible Canada Act developing model accessibility standards for any jurisdiction to use. 

Ontario, for example, should consider the new Accessible and Equitable Artificial Intelligence Systems Standard CAN-ASC-6.2:2025 for adopting into law. This would be one important step towards addressing broader concerns about the discriminatory risks of AI systems that the OHRC has raised in its work with the Law Commission of Ontario.

Ontario recently announced it is establishing an expert third-party advisory body to undertake a section-by-section review of the Building Code. This could be an important opportunity to carefully examine the Building Code’s accessibility regulations and recommend changes, so they reflect and harmonize with modern national and international technical standards and best practices. People with disabilities must always be involved in any such review.

Ontario’s AODA was designed to complement the Code and remove existing barriers, as well as preventing new ones, rather than relying on individuals to seek remedies on a case‑by‑case basis.

Dismantling systemic barriers through regulation creates universal social and economic benefit, not just for the 3.8 million Ontarians with disabilities, but also for families with children and an aging population. It would allow everyone to work, shop, receive services, and live barrier-free in their community and enjoy full and equal participation in society, regardless of disability. These are the expectations set out in the Code and the goals articulated in the AODA.

Ontario has an opportunity to renew its commitment to the AODA by strengthening efforts to address existing barriers. It’s also time for a new comprehensive provincial plan with measurable milestones to truly realize the AODA’s goal of an Ontario without barriers. The OHRC remains committed to using its mandate to help Ontario fully realize this right for people with disabilities.

 

 

Bokhari v. Top Medical Transportation Services: protecting the right to oral hearings for human rights applications 

In February 2026, the Divisional Court released its decision in Bokhari v. Top Medical Transportation Services, finding that the HRTO acted unreasonably when it dismissed Ali Bokhari’s application at an early screening stage and without an oral hearing. The OHRC intervened to demonstrate how the HRTO’s approach to its jurisdiction did not align with established human rights principles.

Mr. Bokhari was fired from his job after requesting time off to recover from a broken ankle. He filed an application with the HRTO alleging that disability was a factor in his termination. The HRTO dismissed both Mr. Bokhari’s application and his reconsideration request, deciding – without an oral hearing – that his ankle injury was not a disability and for that reason, it did not have the jurisdiction to consider his case.

When an application is within the HRTO’s jurisdiction, it must receive an oral hearing. Historically, applications were screened for jurisdiction using the “plain and obvious” standard. After Mr. Bokhari filed his application, the HRTO changed the standard to “a balance of probabilities”, requiring more from applicants to establish the HRTO has jurisdiction to hear their case.

Mr. Bokhari sought judicial review of the HRTO’s decision to dismiss his application. The OHRC was granted leave to intervene and submitted to the Court that the HRTO’s approach to jurisdiction and its interpretation of disability and the duty to accommodate did not align with established human rights principles. In addition, dismissing applications at early stages for jurisdictional reasons creates systemic barriers for vulnerable human rights applicants.

In February 2026, the Court released its decision, ruling that the HRTO’s decision to dismiss Mr. Bokhari’s application was unreasonable.

First, the Court stated that, while the HRTO framed the decision to dismiss Mr. Bokhari’s application as being about jurisdiction, its analysis considered whether Mr. Bokhari’s application could be successful.  The Court ruled that shifting the assessment of disability from the merits stage to the jurisdictional stage was unreasonable and risks depriving individuals of the Code’s protection.

Second, the Court held that it was unreasonable for the HRTO to lower the threshold for jurisdictional screening from the “plain and obvious” standard to “a balance of probabilities.”

Finally, the Court ruled it was unreasonable for the HRTO to conclude that Mr. Bokhari’s ankle injury was not a disability under the Code without an oral hearing. The Code defines disability broadly. Rather than assessing the full impact of the injury on Mr. Bokhari, the HRTO focused narrowly on the nature of the injury itself. The Court also ruled that the duty to inquire was triggered as his employer knew, or should have known, that Mr. Bokhari was a person with a disability.

The Court concluded that Mr. Bokhari’s application was within the HRTO’s jurisdiction and sent his application back to the HRTO to be heard by a new adjudicator.

 

 

Protecting against housing discrimination in shared accommodation

In February 2026, the Ontario Divisional Court reviewed an HRTO decision which found that section 21(1) of the Code does not breach section 15 of the Charter. 

Section 21(1) of the Code exempts accommodation that a tenant shares with an owner from protections against discrimination. The HRTO’s decision meant that the Applicant, receiving benefits from the Ontario Disability Support Program, could not access human rights remedies to address discrimination he allegedly experienced in his search for housing accommodation. 

The OHRC intervened in the HRTO proceeding in 2023 and continued to participate in the Divisional Court. The OHRC argued that exempting shared accommodation from the Code’s protections against discrimination has an adverse impact on people with disabilities. It leaves them to bear the impact of society’s ableist prejudices and denies them equal access to affordable housing. Permitting landlords to discriminate has significant and demeaning consequences for the dignity of renters with disabilities in violation of section 15 of the Charter. 

 

 

Submissions on Bill 60

In November 2025, the OHRC submitted recommendations on the proposed amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 under Bill 60: Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025. 

The OHRC emphasized that the proposed changes could disproportionately affect groups identified under the Code including Indigenous and racialized tenants, persons with disabilities, lone parents, newcomers with language barriers, and people receiving public assistance. 

The OHRC recommended that the Landlord Tenant Board (LTB):

  • Maintain fair and accessible processes consistent with the LTB’s obligations under the Code.
  • Preserve tenants’ ability to raise new issues at rent arrears hearings.
  • Provide tenants with greater access to legal assistance and interpretations services.
  • Maintain the 14-day period for rent arrears eviction notices.
  • Maintain the 30‑day period review to request a review of decisions.
  • Define procedural and extenuating circumstances to ensure both tenants and landlords have meaningful opportunity to access justice. 
  • Establish procedural safeguards to ensure tenants can fully assert legal defences and protect tenants where timelines have been shortened.

Grounded in the OHRC’s vision of an inclusive Ontario where human rights are a lived reality, and guided by its values of social justice, integrity, collaboration and accountability, the submissions reinforced that preventing discriminatory impacts in housing is essential to protecting health, well‑being, and meaningful access to justice.

 

 

Advancing a human rights-based approach to homelessness and encampments

The case of Heegsma v. City of Hamilton, heard in February 2026, marked the first time the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the rights of unhoused women, Indigenous persons and persons with disabilities sheltering in encampments. 

Fourteen unhoused individuals claimed that Hamilton’s by-laws preventing tents on public property, and being evicted from encampments, when they could not access indoor shelter, violated their rights to equality and life, liberty and security of the person protected under the Charter.

The OHRC argued that courts must consider the lived experience, broader social realities, and availability of truly accessible shelter space when determining whether preventing unhoused women, Indigenous persons and persons with disabilities from sheltering themselves violates their rights. 

The Court of Appeal will determine whether municipalities can prevent people from staying in encampments during the day and at night when there are not enough accessible shelter spaces available. The outcome will impact the health and well-being of many unhoused and highly marginalized Ontarians and define the constitutional obligations of municipalities across the province.

 

 

Media highlights