Caseload Statistics (April 1, 2014 - March 31, 2015)
It gives me great pleasure to present SJTO's 2014-15 annual report. As Executive Chair, I am exceedingly proud of the hundreds of dedicated staff and members who work every day to provide procedural and substantive justice to SJTO users. Our commitment to be leaders in the justice community has produced an organization that is innovative, collaborative and a place of remarkable vitality, intelligence and professionalism.
I use the word "remarkable" with both purpose and pride. These are difficulty times for public institutions and those who work to deliver critical services within our communities. Times are harder still for many within our communities who struggle in their daily lives with the impacts of poverty, disability, and social exclusion. Yet SJTO staff and members have stepped up to the challenge. Whether it is helping individuals understand our procedures and their rights and responsibilities; processing, mediating or deciding the nearly 100,000 appeals and applications filed every year; launching new technology that enhances access; or partnering with justice sector partners on cutting edge initiatives, SJTO staff and members believe in the importance of their work and continually look for ways to improve.
In most areas, we have been able to maintain or improve on our service standards in 2014-15. Through our commitment to recruitment, career and professional development we have continued to build capacity and excellence. We prepared to launch e-filing and online scheduling at the LTB, expanded early resolution at the SBT, and held the inaugural meeting of the Child and Youth Division stakeholder group. And as we move into our next fiscal year, we will welcome the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to SJTO.
It is sometimes said there is strength in numbers. At SJTO it is not simply an economy of scale that allows us to serve our users and meet our mandate. Rather, it is the breadth of experience, the individual dedication to public services and the collective goal of fairness and justice which takes SJTO forward.
Michael Gottheil, Executive Chair
Social Justice Tribunals Ontario
I am proud to present SJTO's 2014-15 annual report. This year, our tribunals resolved 96,332 applications and appeals. It's this work, handled by our staff, mediators and adjudicators, that is at the core of our mandate to provide fair and accessible dispute resolution.
SJTO is constantly striving to improve and making our tribunals accessible is one of our priorities. Accessibility coordinators at each tribunal work with people who need accommodation to participate fully in the tribunal processes. Accommodations range from mailing out large print documents, to arranging video or teleconferencing in place of an in-person hearing or mediation, to allowing time for religious observances.
Another way we are making our tribunals more accessible is by using technology to improve customer service. This year we launched a more accessible website, started accepting more case file information by email, and are working with legal clinics to do more video hearings. Early next year, we'll be launching an e-filing pilot at the Landlord and Tenant Board that will allow people to file anytime from anywhere. Our plan is to expand e-filing province-wide in the summer of 2015.
Within SJTO, we launched a consolidated online hearing and mediation room calendar that allows staff to check availability and book hearing rooms across all 13 SJTO sites. The calendar is helping us fully realize the benefits of being part of a group of tribunals. By using all of our available spaces, there are fewer delays in mediations and hearings and fewer rental costs for non-SJTO venues.
At the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and the Child and Family Services Review Board, we reduced delays and saved money by changing how we schedule hearings. At the Landlord and Tenant Board, we created a process to request and grant fee waivers for people with a low income. We also started using electronic case files at the Landlord and Tenant Board for eviction applications from non-profit housing co-operatives - a first for SJTO.
You will find more of initiatives like these ones described in this report. But it's our everyday work - answering questions, ensuring files are complete, scheduling and conducting mediations and hearings, and writing decisions - that is our most important achievement.
Recognizing that our staff know our work the best, we took the opportunity to consult them on how the organization can improve. Over the next year, we'll use the information we gathered to develop a plan to increase employee engagement and improve customer service.
In the meantime, I would like to thank each of the SJTO staff and adjudicators for what you do: it is your dedication that makes SJTO an organization I am proud to be part of.
Ellen Wexler, Executive Lead
Social Justice Tribunals Ontario
Social Justice Tribunals Ontario (SJTO) is a group of seven adjudicative tribunals that play an important role in the administration of justice in Ontario. Each year our tribunals receive and resolve nearly 100,000 cases - providing fair, accessible dispute resolution to thousands of Ontarians.
The tribunals of the SJTO are: Child and Family Services Review Board, Custody Review Board, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Landlord and Tenant Board, Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal, Ontario Special Education (French) Tribunal and Social Benefits Tribunal.
The kinds of disputes we address at our tribunals are extremely varied. We resolve disputes between landlords and tenants, hear appeals from people seeking social assistance and complaints from those who feel the service they received from children's aid societies has been unfair. We deal with applications about human rights and the rights of children and families relating to education.
SJTO was created in 2011 under the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009 (ATAGAA). ATAGAA lets the government group adjudicative tribunals into an organization called a cluster, when "the matters that the tribunals deal with are such that they can operate more effectively and efficiently as part of a cluster than alone". Each tribunal within Social Justice Tribunals Ontario continues to exercise the powers given to it under law.
The Statutory Powers Procedures Act provides a general framework for the conduct of hearings before Ontario's administrative tribunals.
The mandate of Social Justice Tribunals Ontario is to resolve applications and appeals brought under statutes relating to child and family services oversight, youth justice, human rights, residential tenancies, disability support and other social assistance, and special education.
SJTO and its tribunals will:
Our values set the foundation for our rules and policies, how those rules and policies are applied, and how we deliver service to the public. The values are:
Accessibility
Fairness and Independence
Timeliness
Transparency
Professionalism and Public Service
SJTO constantly works to make our tribunals more accessible, to strengthen the expertise of our adjudicators and to be leaders in the justice community. Here are some of the operational highlights from 2014-15.
Since SJTO was formed in 2011, it has been increasing the number of members who speak French. In 2014-15, the SJTO appointed five bilingual members: two full-time and three part-time. SJTO now has 25 members who can conduct hearings in French or English.
SJTO also improved outreach to diverse professionals for adjudicator positions through ethnic legal associations (e.g. South Asian Bar Association), the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, Maytree and the Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council.
Next year, we plan to conduct an adjudicator diversity survey to give us the information we need to build a stronger, more diverse organization.
Co-location of SJTO's downtown Toronto offices has been planned since SJTO was formed in 2011. Since that time, the scope of the co-location project has been expanded and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario, and the Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario will also relocate at 25 Grosvenor Street, Toronto. Because the tribunals will be able to share hearing and mediation rooms at the new location, the co-location will result in lease savings. The co-location also has the potential for the tribunals to share facilities and equipment for video and telephone hearings and some administrative services, like security, mailroom and file storage.
Most of SJTO's downtown Toronto offices will move in the summer of 2016. LTB's Toronto South office is scheduled to move in May 2017.
To ensure that the new space at 25 Grosvenor meets the needs of the tribunals and its users, the project's design consultants conducted extensive consultations over the winter of 2015. The consultants visited all of the SJTO offices to look at the space and document how it is being used. Staff and members were consulted through focus groups, interviews and an online survey.
In January and February, SJTO stakeholders were given an opportunity to learn about the project and provide feedback on the public spaces in the new building through a web-based information session, a focus group and an invitation to provide written feedback.
The information collected will be used to develop detailed floor plans over the next nine months.
SJTO has started using email more often as a way to communicate with parties.
In March and April 2015, SBT and LTB began piloting the use of email for case inquiries. Both tribunals will evaluate the pilots, consult with stakeholders, and make adjustments to the protocols, before offering the service province-wide.
The use of email is not entirely new at SJTO. The HRTO has used email to answer inquiries and communicate with parties since it was formed in 2008. The CFSRB has accepted applications by email since 2012.
The new SJTO web portal (sjto.ca), launched on March 30, 2015, is written in simpler language, is more accessible to users with disabilities and is easier to navigate on mobile devices. It also has a better search function, making it easier for people to find what they're looking for, both using the internal search and through search engines like Google and Bing. The site delivers on SJTO's commitment to make an active offer of accommodations and French language services. It also improves SJTO accountability by putting executive travel and meal expenses, policies and a list of members all in the same spot.
The Custody Review Board, Social Benefits Tribunal, Ontario Special Education Tribunal and Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario sites were launched on March 30, 2015. The Landlord and Tenant Board and the Child and Family Services Review Board will join the site later this year.
SJTO is constantly striving to improve. This year, the SJTO Evaluation Project was conducted to measure SJTO's performance through self-evaluation by members, staff and management. The survey for the project was based on the one done by the Council of Australasian Tribunals with modifications to fit the Ontario context.
The survey looked at eight areas:
71.5% of all members, staff and management completed the survey, which was administered online in September and October 2014. The answers will help SJTO understand how well we are delivering in areas like accessibility, independence, fairness and leadership. We will use the results to plan for improvement in these areas.
SJTO has a professional development program for adjudicators and mediators that is unique in Canada. The program includes new member training, an annual professional development conference and modules that can be delivered in person or online. The program focuses on skill development and knowledge but also broadens the perspective and deepens the sensibilities of our decision-makers by shedding light on the perspectives of our users and the challenges they face. It is thanks to our pooled resources and the common thread of social justice that winds through our tribunals that we can deliver this program.
"The Institute", our annual professional development event for SJTO's 200 adjudicators and mediators, was held for the third time in May 2014. The theme was "Evolution of the Law" and covered topics like communication in mediation, decision writing, early resolution techniques and evidence. The event incorporated more stakeholder and client perspectives than in the past.
Sixteen new members at SBT, LTB and HRTO received foundational training that included modules on administrative law principles, natural justice and procedural fairness, statutory interpretation, freedom of information and privacy, ethical obligations and independence of adjudicators, human rights, and areas of law within the mandate of the tribunal.
Other professional development initiatives include training modules for all members in human rights, decision writing, evidence, credibility assessment, and an intensive session on Aboriginal perspectives in dispute resolution.
The SJTO professional development program also incorporates courses from the Society of Ontario Adjudicators and Regulators, the Council of Canadian Administrative Tribunals, the Ontario Bar Association and the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice.
As an organization that operates on the front lines of justice, SJTO understands that representation by a lawyer is not always possible, and Ontario needs alternatives. For that reason, Social Justice Tribunals Ontario collaborated with TAG - The Action Group on Access to Justice and The Law Society of Upper Canada to hold the first of three half-day symposia to explore how targeted legal services can increase access to justice. Seventy-nine people attended the first symposium called Targeted Legal Services: We Are All Pieces of the Puzzle held at Osgoode Hall, in Toronto on February 3, 2015. Another 227 people watched the live webcast.
Targeted legal services includes limited scope retainers and self-help information, but also incorporates early resolution and dispute avoidance programs offered through community organizations, public legal information and referral services, alternate dispute resolution, alternative hearing processes at courts and tribunals, and alternative practice models for lawyers and paralegals.
At the symposium, panel members from the Superior Court of Justice, the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, the Income Security Advisory Centre and the private bar, reflected on their experience using targeted legal services.
Two more symposia are scheduled for May and September 2015.
The OSETs, the HRTO, the CFSRB and the CRB hear cases about children and youth in the areas of special needs, mental health, education, and placements in care. To develop a more youth-centric approach, two bodies were formed:
The division and its practice advisory committee are focused on two areas: the recruitment, training and cross-appointment of adjudicators and stakeholder engagement. The SJTO has several members who are expert in child/youth matters and who are cross-appointed to one or more of the CFSRB/CRB, OSETs and HRTO, including the CFSRB's Associate Chair, who is cross-appointed to the HRTO and OSETs.
While no applications have been recently filed, the OSETs continue to respond to email and telephone inquiries and provide information and forms on its new website: sjto.ca/oset and tjso.ca/tedo
| Applications/Appeals Received | Applications/Appeals Resolved | |
|---|---|---|
| Landlord and Tenant Board | 79,532 | 78,103 |
| Social Benefits Tribunal | 14,025 | 14,606 |
| Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario | 3,259 | 3,179 |
| Child and Family Services Review Board | 329 | 358 |
| Custody Review Board | 84 | 86 |
| Ontario Special Education Tribunals (English and French) | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 97,229 | 96,332 |
SJTO has:
| Expenditures (See below for category definitions) | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | 2012-13 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Salaries | 29,588,414 | 30,253,209 | 30,161,085 |
| Benefits | 3,977,159 | 4,389,513 | 3,915,122 |
| Travel & Communications | 2,114,840 | 2,281,703 | 2,425,909 |
| Services | 7,461,634 | 7,534,310 | 7,687,028 |
| Part-time Members Per Diem | 1,868,324 | 1,793,410 | 1,780,077 |
| Supplies & Equipment | 572,683 | 609,028 | 691,019 |
| Total | 45,583,054 | 46,861,173 | 46,660,239 |
| Revenue | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | 2012-13 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Landlord and Tenant Board application filing fees (Deposited in the Consolidated Revenue Fund) | 11,803,984 | 12,017,104 | 12,110,484 |
* Financial information for 2012-13 and 2013-14 has been updated from the previous annual report to reflect final adjustments.
Category Definitions
Salaries includes: Salaries and wages for SJTO staff and full-time adjudicators, and for temporary help
Benefits includes: CPP, EI, Employer Health Tax and insurance
Travel and communications includes: Costs for items such as telephone and fax, voice mail, blackberry and mobile phones, audio conferencing, postage, travel costs
Services includes: costs for items such as office equipment rental, translation, interpreter fees, rental for hearing venue, security and printing
Part-time members per diem is compensation for part-time members
Supplies and equipment includes: costs for items such as furniture and fixtures, office equipment, stationery and office supplies
The Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) conducts reviews and hearings on a number of matters that affect children, youth and families in Ontario.
Under the Child and Family Services Act, the CFSRB can review:
Under the Education Act, the Board can hear appeals about the expulsion of students by school boards.
Under the Intercountry Adoption Act, the Board can review:
The CFSRB made changes to its brochures for self-represented applicants. The brochures explain the CFSRB processes at hearings, pre-hearings and settlement facilitations, so that applicants are better prepared to come before the CFSRB.
Amendments to Regulation 70 of the Child and Family Services Act changed the minimum number of members required to hear an application or appeal from three to one. The CFSRB has started assigning one member to hearings of Complaints about Children's Aid Society's Services (section 68) and has assigned more two-member panels for other application types than in previous years, contributing to a significant reduction in part-time member per diem costs and travel expenses.
The CFSRB has supported the work of SJTO's new Child and Youth Division by conducting a review of board and tribunal caseloads and preparing a discussion paper. The division is working to ensure cases involving children and youth at the SJTO are dealt with using a more consistent and child-focused approach.
Frontline staff received training from a mental health professional to increase their understanding of mental health issues, dissipate myths and end stigma. The training helps staff better serve users with mental health issues.
The CFSRB received 329 applications: 12 (or 3%) fewer than last fiscal.
The number of applications received was stable for almost all types of applications. The exception was applications for the Removal of a Crown Ward, which increased by almost 100%, from 13 to 23.
| Application Type | 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 61 of the CFSA - Removal of a Crown Ward | 23 | 13 | 11 |
| Section 68 of the CFSA - Complaints Against a Children's Aid Society | 231 | 248 | 229 |
| Section 144 of the CFSA - Refusal of Application to Adopt or Refusal to Approve a Proposed Adoption Placement | 18 | 17 | 10 |
| Section 311.7 of the Education Act - School Board Expulsion Appeals | 13 | 12 | 11 |
| Section 124 of the CFSA - Review of Emergency Secure Treatment Admission (ESTA) | 37 | 45 | 35 |
| Section 36 of the CFSA - Review of Residential Placement (ARRP) | 7 | 6 | 4 |
| Section 5 & 6 of the Intercountry Adoption Act - Intercountry Adoption Applications (Refusal to Adopt Outside of Canada) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 329 | 341 | 300 |
| 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applications Received | 23 | 13 | 11 |
| Hearings Held | 7 | 3 | 7 |
| Hearing Days | 19 | 6 | 30 |
| Applications Withdrawn | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Applications Scheduled for Mediation | 2 | 3 | N/A |
| Applications Settled through Mediation | 1 | 1 | N/A |
| Final Hearing Decisions Issued | 5 | 2 | 5 |
| 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applications Received | 231 | 248 | 229 |
| Hearings | 35 | 32 | 36 |
| Hearing Days | 52 | 46 | 45 |
| Applications Withdrawn | 33 | 39 | 22 |
| Applications Scheduled for Settlement Facilitation | 184 | 175 | 168 |
| Applications Settled at Settlement Facilitation | 134 | 115 | 124 |
| Written Review Decisions | 4 | 10 | 8 |
| Final Hearing Decisions Issued | 28 | 24 | 33 |
| 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applications Received | 18 | 17 | 10 |
| Hearings | 6 | 6 | 4 |
| Hearing Days | 25 | 24 | 9 |
| Applications Scheduled for Mediation | 0 | 3 | N/A |
| Applications Settled through Mediation | 0 | 2 | N/A |
| Final Hearing Decisions Issued | 3 | 6 | 5 |
| 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applications Received | 7 | 6 | 4 |
| Hearings | 3 | 3 | 1 |
| Applications Scheduled for Mediation | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| Applications Settled through Mediation | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Final Hearing Decisions Issued | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applications Received | 37 | 45 | 35 |
| Hearings | 14 | 12 | 18 |
| Final Decisions Issued | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| Applications Withdrawn | 25 | 33 | 19 |
| 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appeals Received | 13 | 12 | 11 |
| Hearings | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Hearing Days | 4 | 6 | 3 |
| Appeals Withdrawn | 7 | 5 | 8 |
| Appeals Scheduled for Mediation | 4 | 3 | N/A |
| Appeals Settled through Mediation | 4 | 2 | N/A |
| Final Hearing Decisions Issued | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applications Received | 0 | 0 | 0 |
The goal is to meet the service standard 80% of the time.
| Hearing Standard | % of time service standard is met | Average number of days |
|---|---|---|
| CFSA Section 124 hearings will be scheduled within four calendar days of receipt of the application | 100% | 3 |
| CFSA Section 68 pre-hearing conferences will be scheduled within 40 calendar days after the application | 85% | 33 |
| CFSA Section 68 hearings will be scheduled within 60 calendar days after the application is deemed eligible | 82% | 53 |
| CFSA Section 36 hearings will be scheduled within 20 calendar days of receipt of the application | 100% | 9 |
| CFSA Section 61 and Section 144 hearings will be scheduled within 20 calendar days after the application has been deemed eligible | 100% | 14 |
| Appeals of school board expulsion hearings will be scheduled within 30 calendar days of receipt of the notice of appeal | 100% | 22 |
| Decisions Standard | % of time service standard is met | Average number of days |
|---|---|---|
| Appeals of school board expulsion orders will be issued within 10 calendar days after the hearing has been completed | No orders released | No orders released |
| Appeals of school board expulsion decisions will be issued within 30 calendar days after the hearing has been completed | No decisions released | No decisions released |
| CFSA Section 68 applications: Decisions or orders will be issued within 30 calendar days of the completion of the hearing | 90% | 25 |
| All other CFSA applications: Orders will be issued within 10 calendar days after the hearing has been completed | 72% | 23 |
The Custody Review Board hears applications and makes recommendations on the placement of young people in custody or detention about:
The CRB operates under the jurisdiction of the Child and Family Services Act and the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
| 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applications received | 84 | 99 | 144 |
| Applications withdrawn | 12 | 13 | 28 |
| Applications closed because the youth was moved or released | 22 | 29 | 42 |
| Inquiries held | 82 | 92 | 133 |
| Hearings held | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Final recommendations issued | 50 | 56 | 75 |
Reviews are usually conducted as inquiries over the phone and are completed very quickly. The CRB can also choose to hold a hearing but hasn't done so in the past three years.
For the second year in a row, the CRB saw a significant decrease in applications. The decrease could be due in part to the record low numbers of youth in custody.
The three most common issues raised by youth in their CRB applications this year were, in order of frequency:
In the last six months of the fiscal year, the CRB started to ask youth to self-identify on racial or ethnic grounds. The vast majority chose to self-identify. About 40% identified as African Canadian. This information helps the CRB to have a better understanding of one aspect of the applicants' social context.
The goal is to meet the service standard 80% of the time.
| Standard | % of time service standard was met | Average number of days |
|---|---|---|
| Review will begin by a telephone call within 24 hours of the receipt of the application | 100% | < 1 day |
| Where the board intends to hold a hearing it will advise the young person within 10 calendar days of the receipt of the application | N/A - no hearings held | N/A |
| Recommendations will be issued within 30 calendar days of receipt of the applications | 98% | 17 |
The HRTO resolves claims of discrimination and harassment brought under the Human Rights Code in a fair, just and timely way. The HRTO first offers parties the opportunity to settle the dispute through mediation. If the parties do not agree to mediation, or mediation does not resolve the application, the HRTO holds a hearing.
The HRTO is established under the Human Rights Code.
In April 2014, the HRTO welcomed a new Associate Chair, Yola Grant. Yola is a labour, employment and human rights lawyer and a teacher. Before joining the HRTO, Yola worked at Grant & Bernhardt and held a number of policy and legal positions in the public sector including counsel at the Pay Equity and Employment Equity tribunals, and the predecessor to the HRTO, the Board of Inquiry.
In April 2014, the HRTO implemented these recommendations made in the Report of the Ontario Human Rights Review 2012 (The Pinto Report):
The HRTO is sensitive to the fact that privacy concerns must be balanced against the public interest in an open justice system. The HRTO updated the "declaration" section of the application and response forms in December 2014 to make it clear that HRTO decisions are available to the public and that in some limited circumstances decisions can be anonymized.
Most hearings this year were scheduled for one or two days. Previously they had been scheduled for three. This change means:
The results of the change were positive:
Fourteen registrar letters were created or updated this year. These letters are written in simpler language, which helps parties understand the HRTO processes. Some of the letters address common requests made by parties that members previously had to address through a more formal adjudicative review that resulted in a Case Assessment Direction. Creating registrar letters to address these requests has made the application review process more efficient and freed up members' time for hearings, mediations and decision writing.
The ten servers hosting HRTO case management system were moved from HRTO's Toronto offices to a secure and reliable Ontario data centre in Guelph.
| 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applications received | 3,259 | 3,242 | 2,837 |
| Cases reactivated | 28 | 31 | 27 |
| Cases closed | 3,179 | 3,341 | 3,105 |
| Active cases at year-end | 3,101 | 2,993 | 3,061 |
Of the "Active cases at year-end", 454 are "deferred" or put on hold until another proceeding outside the HRTO has dealt with the issue.
Of the cases closed in fiscal 2014-15 where the application was accepted, 2,286 (72 per cent) were closed within one year. The average time from application acceptance to closure was 316 days, with a median of 225 days.
| Postal Code | 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eastern (K) | 12% | 13% | 12% |
| Central (L) | 38% | 38% | 37% |
| Toronto (M) | 25% | 24% | 24% |
| Western (N) | 17% | 17% | 19% |
| Northern (P) | 5% | 6% | 6% |
| Other | 3% | 2% | 3% |
Some applications allege discrimination in more than one social area, so the totals exceed 100%.
| Social Area | 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employment | 74% | 74% | 77% |
| Goods, Services and Facilities | 22% | 22% | 21% |
| Housing | 7% | 6% | 6% |
| Contracts | 2% | 1% | 1% |
| Membership in a Vocational Association | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| No Social Area | 2% | 2% | 2% |
Many applications claim more than one ground, so the totals exceed 100%.
| Ground | 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disability | 56% | 54% | 57% |
| Reprisal | 26% | 27% | 25% |
| Race | 20% | 22% | 22% |
| Colour | 14% | 16% | 15% |
| Age | 14% | 13% | 15% |
| Ethnic Origin | 15% | 17% | 15% |
| Place of Origin | 12% | 15% | 13% |
| Family Status | 12% | 13% | 10% |
| Ancestry | 10% | 13% | 11% |
| Sex, Pregnancy & Sexual Harassment | 21% | 25% | 22% |
| Sexual Solicitation or Advances | 5% | 8% | 6% |
| Sexual Orientation | 4% | 8% | 4% |
| Gender Identity | 4% | 7% | 2% |
| Gender Expression | 2% | 5% | 1% |
| Creed | 6% | 8% | 6% |
| Marital Status | 6% | 8% | 5% |
| Association | 5% | 5% | 4% |
| Citizenship | 4% | 6% | 4% |
| Record of Offences | 3% | 3% | 4% |
| Receipt of Public Assistance | 1% | 2% | 2% |
| No grounds | 6% | 4% | 2% |
| 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mediations held | 1,459 | 1,562 | 1,283 |
| Settled at mediation | 59% | 59% | 60% |
| 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|
Applicant representation
|
32% 30% 3% 35% 5% |
32% 31% 3% 34% 4% |
33% 16% 4% 47% 4% |
Respondent representation
|
86% 1% 13% 2% |
85% 2% 13% 2% |
85% 2% 13% 3% |
| 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|
Applicant representation
|
28% 12% 4% 48% 8% |
29% 8% 5% 52% 6% |
26% 6% 4% 55% 9% |
Respondent representation
|
86% 2% 9% 3% |
84% 3% 9% 4% |
82% 3% 12% 3% |
| Type of Decision | 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Final decision on the merits | 110 | 143 | 134 |
| — Discrimination found | 43 | 56 | 47 |
| — Discrimination not found | 67 | 87 | 87 |
| Dismissal on a preliminary basis (including following summary hearings) | 703 (117 summary hearings) | 871 | 699 |
| Deferrals (put an application on hold until another proceeding outside the HRTO has dealt with the issue) | 164 | 191 | 252 |
| Interim decisions (address procedural issues) | 797 | 525 | 424 |
| Reconsideration | 159 | 151 | 142 |
| Breach of settlement | 21 | 24 | 15 |
The HRTO issued 1,553 Case Assessment Directions in 2014-15. Case Assessment Directions deal with procedural issues.
The goal is to meet the service standard 80% of the time.
| Hearings and Mediations | % of time service standard is met | Average number of days |
|---|---|---|
| The first mediation date offered to parties will be scheduled to take place within 150 calendar days from the date the parties agree to mediation | 83% | 129 |
| The first hearing date offered to parties will be scheduled to take place within 180 calendar days from the date the application is ready to proceed to hearing | 62% | 170 |
| Decisions | % of time service standard is met | Average number of days |
|---|---|---|
| Decisions for hearings which take 3 days or less will be issued within 90 calendar days | 82% | 68 |
| Decisions for hearings which take longer than 3 days, will be issued within 180 calendar days | 39% | 230 |
The Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) was established on January 31, 2007 to:
The Landlord and Tenant Board is established under the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
On June 1, 2014, non-profit housing co-operatives ("co-ops") began filing applications for eviction with the LTB instead of the courts.
The change was made as a result of the Non-profit Housing Co-operatives Statute Law Amendment Act which amends parts of the RTA.
Because the LTB anticipated receiving only about 500 co-op eviction applications annually, it decided to pilot new processes which could potentially be used for other kinds of applications.
Some of these new processes are:
From June 1, 2014 to April 30, 2015 the LTB received 208 co-op eviction applications, most for non-payment of regular monthly housing charges.
When co-op applications are filed, the LTB schedules both a case management hearing and a merits hearing. About 75% of the co-op applications that are contested have been resolved by mediation at the case management hearing, freeing up the time to hear other applications. Most people who have participated in case management hearings, say they liked having the opportunity to settle the dispute before a hearing. The LTB will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the co-op processes.
Another amendment in the Non-profit Housing Co-operatives Statute Law Amendment Act allows the LTB to waive fees for people who have a low income. The LTB developed criteria for determining who would qualify for a fee waiver and a process for submitting a fee waiver request.
The proposed rule and practice direction related to fee waivers were posted for public consultation in February 2014 and fee waivers were implemented on June 1. From June 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015, the LTB received 1,659 requests resulting in $75,144 in waived fees.
On September 15, 2014 the LTB began piloting case management hearings for Applications about Tenant Rights (T2) and Tenant Applications about Maintenance (T6).
During a case management hearing, parties can settle the issues in dispute with the help of a hearing officer: an LTB mediator who has been designated as a hearing officer under the RTA. If an application is not settled, the LTB schedules a second hearing to hear the merits of the application. The hearing officer makes sure the parties are prepared for the merits hearing, by directing them to exchange documents by a specific date, for example.
LTB's Toronto South and Southern (Hamilton) offices are piloting the initiative. Case management hearings are being conducted in person or by phone.
The pilot is being evaluated based on settlement rates, level of preparedness for a merits hearing and the type of adjournments requested at a merits hearing. Early results show that about 55% of the applications that were scheduled for a case management hearing were resolved at that stage. There was no difference in the success rate between case management hearings conducted by telephone or in person. Depending on the results of the pilot, the LTB will consider expanding the use of case management hearings to other LTB offices and other types of applications.
The LTB has changed how hearings are scheduled in the Toronto South and Toronto North District Offices. Previously, hearings in those two locations had been scheduled in half day hearing blocks. Starting in March 2015, most cases (Forms L1 and L9 excepted) were scheduled into full day hearing blocks. Full day hearing blocks are already common in many other LTB hearing locations.
A hearing block is a period of time during which a group of applications are scheduled. Parties are not given a specific time slot when their application will be heard during their block. They wait in the hearing room until their application is called.
The hope is that the change will reduce the number of hearings that have to be rescheduled because of lack of time. In a full day block, if tenants consult with duty counsel or if the parties choose to mediate, there will usually still be time to hold a hearing.
The LTB will be monitoring the new approach to make sure that more cases are being heard on the day they are scheduled.
The LTB launched updated application and notice forms on March 1, 2015 (for use starting April 1). The new forms are easier to understand and complete.
LTB e-File: Looking to the coming year, LTB is excited to begin with a soft launch of an electronic filing system (e-File). During the soft launch a small pool of regular users will eFile their applications. LTB e-File will provide clients with a new, secure and simple way to file the following forms online: L1, L2, T2 and T6. The LTB expects to make e-File available across the province in the summer of 2015.
Email for case-specific inquiries: LTB is piloting the use of email as a way for parties to submit information or ask questions about their case in two offices: Toronto South and Southwestern (London). If the pilot is successful, the plan is to offer email across the province as another way for parties to get in touch with the LTB.
When both parties involved in an application are interested in working together to resolve the issues in dispute, the LTB provides a mediator. In 2014-2015, approximately 35% of all applications where both parties attended the hearing were resolved through mediated agreements and/or consent orders arrived at during mediation. By comparison, about 75% of the co-op applications that were contested were resolved by mediation at the case management hearing.
A mediated agreement is an agreement between the parties. A consent order is an LTB order based on terms that the parties agree to and is enforceable by the courts.
A party can ask for a review of an LTB decision if a "serious error" has been made in the order.
In 2014-2015, the LTB received 2,471 requests for review, 3% of the total applications received. Of the review requests received, 1,440 were denied after a preliminary review. The other 1,022 were sent to hearing to determine whether there was a serious error.
The LTB handled 286,869 telephone calls this year. The average time per call was 05:10. The average time callers waited in the call queue was 06:48.
In 2014-15, the LTB received 79,740 applications. This total includes landlord, tenant and co-op applications. This is a decrease of 2.45% or 2,008 applications compared to 2013-2014.
The ratio of landlord to tenant applications has remained relatively constant since 1998 when the resolution of landlord-tenant disputes was transferred from the provincial court system to the LTB. This past year was no exception, with 90% of applications filed by landlords and 10% filed by tenants.
Applications for termination of tenancy and eviction continue to represent the bulk of the LTB's workload. Of the total applications received by the LTB, approximately 62.7% were to terminate a tenancy because of non-payment of rent.
On June 2, 2014, non-profit housing co-operatives ("co-ops") began filing applications for eviction with the LTB. These applications were previously handled by the courts. The LTB received 208 co-op eviction applications between June 1, 2014 and the end of the fiscal year.
As of March 31, 2015, the number of unresolved applications at the LTB was 10,286.
| 2014-2015* | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applications Received | 79,740 | 81,748 | 82,192 |
| Applications Resolved | 77,306 | 82,126 | 80,261 |
| Outstanding at end of fiscal year | 10,286 | 8,497 | 9,580 |
* The 2014-2015 totals include non-profit co-operative housing eviction applications, which the LTB began receiving in June 2014.
| Central | East | North | South | South-west | Toronto East | Toronto North | Toronto South | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8,963 | 8,370 | 3,829 | 10,947 | 13,500 | 10,798 | 12,169 | 10,956 | 79,592 |
| Central | East | North | South | South-west | Toronto East | Toronto North | Toronto South | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 19 | 11 | 19 | 36 | 58 | 24 | 31 | 208 |
| Case Type | Application Description | 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Determine Whether the Act Applies | 55 (0.1%) | 69 (0.1%) | 62 (0.1%) |
| A2 | Sublet or Assignment | 263 (0.4%) | 241 (0.3%) | 237 (0.3%) |
| A3 | Combined Application (usually includes an L1) | 3,986 (5.6%) | 4,209 (5.7%) | 3,936 (5.2%) |
| A4 | Vary Rent Reduction Amount | 135 (0.2%) | 134 (0.2%) | 209 (0.3%) |
| L1 | Terminate & Evict for Non-Payment of Rent | 49,991 (70.0%) | 52,832 (71.2%) | 54,777 (73.0%) |
| L2 | Terminate for Other Reasons & Evict | 7,983 (11.2%) | 7,132 (9.9%) | 7,102 (9.5%) |
| L3 | Termination - Tenant Gave Notice or Agreed | 1,208 (1.7%) | 1,179 (1.6%) | 1,225 (1.6%) |
| L4 | Terminate the Tenancy - Failed Settlement | 5,632 (7.9%) | 5,955 (8.0%) | 5,549 (7.4%) |
| L5 | Rent Increase Above the Guideline | 548 (0.8%) | 438 (0.6%) | 296 (0.4%) |
| L6 | Review of Provincial Work Order | 8 (0.0%) | 3 (0.0%) | 11 (0.00%) |
| L7 | Transfer Tenant to Care Home | 0 (0.0%) | 4 (0.0%) | 0 (0.00%) |
| L8 | Tenant Changed Locks | 31 (0.0%) | 21 (0.0%) | 45 (0.00%) |
| L9 | Application to Collect Rent | 1,735 (2.4%) | 1,800 (2.4%) | 1,620 (2.2%) |
| Total | 71,575 | 74,197 | 75,069 |
| Case Type | Application Description | 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Determine Whether the Act Applies | 59 (0.7%) | 23 (0.3%) | 30 (0.4%) |
| A2 | Sublet or Assignment | 55 (0.7%) | 46 (0.6%) | 45 (0.6%) |
| A3 | Combined Application | 1,921 (24.1%) | 1,680 (22.3%) | 1,342 (18.8%) |
| A4 | Vary Rent Reduction Amount | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (0.0%) | 1 (0.01%) |
| T1 | Rent Rebate (e.g. illegal rent) | 716 (9.0%) | 663 (8.8%) | 618 (8.7%) |
| T2 | Tenant Rights | 3,441 (43.2%) | 3,441 (43.2%) | 3,676 (51.6%) |
| T3 | Rent Reduction | 69 (0.9%) | 51 (0.7%) | 58 (0.8%) |
| T4 | Failed Rent Increase Above Guideline | 1 (0.0%) | 4 (0.0%) | 1 (0.01%) |
| T5 | Bad Faith Notice of Termination | 170 (2.1%) | 156 (2.1%) | 152 (2.1%) |
| T6 | Maintenance | 1,516 (19.1%) | 1,318 (17.5%) | 1,198 (16.8%) |
| T7 | Suite Meters | 9 (0.0%) | 9 (0.0%) | 2 (0.03%) |
| Total | 7,957 | 7,551 | 7,123 |
| Case Type | Application Description | Received |
|---|---|---|
| C1 | Application to End the Occupancy and Evict the Member based on Non-payment of Regular Monthly Housing Charges and to Collect the Housing Charges that the Co-op Member Owes | 132 (63.4%) |
| C1/2 | Combined C1 and C2 applications | 32 (15.3%) |
| C2 | Application to End the Occupancy of the Member Unit and Evict the Member | 23 (11%) |
| C3 | Application to End the Occupancy and Evict the Member - Based on the Member's Consent or Notice | 7 (3.4%) |
| C4 | Application to End the Occupancy of the Member Unit and Evict the Member Because the Member Failed to Meet Conditions of a Settlement/Order | 14 (7%) |
| Total | 208 |
| Resolution Type | Total |
|---|---|
| Abandoned1 | 2,668 |
| Resolved by Mediation2 | 11,926 |
| Resolved at Hearing3 | 48,107 |
| Resolved without Hearing4 | 4,402 |
| Review Denied | 675 |
| Withdrawn | 7,369 |
| Other5 | 2,001 |
| Total | 77,148 |
1 ordered by hearing abandoned
2 mediated; ordered by hearing mediated
3 ordered by hearing contested or uncontested; ordered by review
4 ordered ex parte; ordered by section 206 agreement
5 discontinued; order voided; ordered amended; amendment denied
| Resolution Type | Total |
|---|---|
| No Hearing6 | 22 |
| CMH Only | 110 |
| Merit Hearing Only | 10 |
| Both CMH and Merit Hearing | 16 |
| Total | 158 |
6 application withdrawn/discontinued; parties settled the issues on their own
When a co-op eviction application is filed, the LTB schedules a case management hearing (CMH) and a merits hearing. If the application is resolved at the CMH, the merits hearing is cancelled.
The goal is to meet the service standard 80% of the time.
| Standard | % of time service standard is met | Average number of days |
|---|---|---|
| Applications will be scheduled for a hearing within 25 business days | 78% | 21 |
| Decisions for LTB applications will be issued within 5 business days at the conclusion of the final hearing | 89% | 3.6 |
The Social Benefits Tribunal hears appeals from people who have either been refused social assistance or who receive social assistance but disagree with a decision that affects:
Because of the sensitive personal information involved in these cases, the legislation requires that all hearings must be held in private.
The Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) is established under Part IV of the Ontario Works Act, 1997. Appeals are heard under that act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997.
SBT has developed a new information brochure based on valuable input from stakeholders. The new SBT brochure is written in simpler language and includes:
On March 30, 2015, SBT launched a six-month pilot which allows some legal clinics and ODSP/OW offices to submit documents and inquiries by email. By offering another means of communication, email improves the accessibility of the tribunal. Participants can still chose to submit documents by fax or mail. An evaluation of the pilot that includes stakeholders will begin in September. If the pilot proves successful, it will be expanded to other areas of the province.
The SBT, the Rexdale Community Legal Clinic and the Disability Adjudication Unit of the Ministry of Community and Social Services partnered to pilot the use of video-conferencing technology for appeal hearings. The technology is easy to use and the picture and sound are clear. There are benefits for everyone involved. Appellants will save travel time and attend their hearing in a safe and comfortable environment. The case presenting officer from the MCSS Disability Adjudication Unit will also save on commuting time by attending the hearing by video from their office.
The SBT continues to improve the Early Resolution Program (ERP). The ERP is held by phone with the two parties and a SBT Appeal Resolution Officer, who helps the parties look for opportunities to resolve the appeal without a hearing. Parties benefit from the ERP because they can have a chance to resolve the appeal as early as one month after the appeal is filed, instead of waiting several months for hearing. The parties also have ownership of the resolution, instead of holding a hearing where a member makes the decision. This year, the SBT held 1,433 ERP sessions. The settlement rate was 32%, similar to last year's rate of 34%.
SBT is developing its own Rules of Procedure. Together with the SJTO Common Rules, introduced in October 2013, the SBT Rules of Procedure will increase the transparency of the SBT's procedures, and help parties prepare for their hearing. SBT consulted with stakeholders on the rules in early 2015.
SBT started to see an increase in medical review appeals this year as MCSS' Disability Adjudication Unit increased the number of medical reviews they conducted. The SBT received 726 medical review appeals. By comparison, in 2013-2014, we received 147. The volume of appeals is expected to continue to increase and SBT is working with the legal clinics and the DAU on two projects to address the increase:
Frontline staff received training from a mental health professional to increase their understanding of mental health issues, dissipate myths and end stigma. The training helps staff better serve users with mental health issues.
The SBT received 14,025 appeals, a decrease of 700 from the previous year. More appeals were completed this year than last, so the number of pending cases also went down by more than 500. The average time to complete a case increased from 8.9 months to 10.6 months. SBT continued to schedule hearings within 30 days of receiving the appeal.
| 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appeals Received | 14,025 | 14,768 | 15,430 |
| Completed | 14,606 | 14,225 | 13,325 |
| Pending | 11,317 | 11,898 | 11,355 |
| Case Processing Time (Months) | 10.6 | 8.9 | 8.7 |
| 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Completed without a Hearing* | 4,977 (34%) | 4,936 (35%) | 4,952 (37%) |
| Completed with a Hearing** | 9,629 (66%) | 9,289 (65%) | 8,373 (63%) |
* Completed without a hearing includes: appeal resolved before a hearing due to respondent's consent or appellant's withdrawal (e.g. - after early resolution process), reconsideration request not granted, no contact from appellant, no jurisdiction, other administrative reasons.
** Completed with a hearing includes: decisions released following a reconsideration hearing.
| 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ODSP | 13,207 (94%) | 13,732 (93%) | 14,317 (93%) |
| OW | 818 (6%) | 1,036 (7%) | 1,113 (7%) |
| Total | 14,025 | 14,768 | 15,430 |
| ODSP | 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Refusal | 11,716 (89%) | 12,613 (92%) | 13,307 (93%) |
| Cancellation & Suspension | 828 (6%) | 353 (2%) | 282 (2%) |
| Amount & Reduction | 559 (4%) | 659 (5%) | 628 (4%) |
| Other | 104 (1%) | 107 (1%) | 100 (1%) |
| Total | 13,207 | 13,732 | 14,317 |
| OW | 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Refusal | 178 (22%) | 229 (22%) | 280 (25%) |
| Cancellation & Suspension | 293 (36%) | 393 (38%) | 397 (36%) |
| Amount & Reduction | 320 (39%) | 383 (37%) | 409 (37%) |
| Other | 27 (3%) | 31 (3%) | 27 (2%) |
| Total | 818 | 1,036 | 1,113 |
| ODSP | 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Granted | 5,090 (55%) | 4,789 (54%) | 3,961 (50%) |
| Denied | 2,533 (27%) | 2,436 (28%) | 2,434 (31%) |
| Denied in Absentia* | 1,178 (13%) | 1,163 (13%) | 941 (12%) |
| Other** | 437 (5%) | 443 (5%) | 531 (7%) |
| Total | 9,238 | 8,831 | 7,867 |
| OW | 2014-2015 | 2013-2014 | 2012-2013 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Granted | 69 (18%) | 57 (12%) | 48 (9%) |
| Denied | 119 (30%) | 186 (41%) | 192 (38%) |
| Denied in Absentia* | 151 (39%) | 155 (34%) | 151 (30%) |
| Other** | 52 (13%) | 60 (13%) | 115 (23%) |
| Total | 391 | 458 | 506 |
* Cases denied in absentia: Appellant was not present for the hearing.
** Other decisions include: consent order, no appeal before the tribunal, appeal out of time, no jurisdiction, matter resolved or withdrawn, or cases referred back to the Director or Administrator to reconsider its original decision in accordance with the directions given by the tribunal.
The goal is to meet the service standard 80% of the time.
| Standard | % of time service standard is met | Average number of days |
|---|---|---|
| Appeals will be scheduled with a notice of hearing sent out no later than 30 calendar days after receipt of the appeal. And The hearing date will be set no more than 180 calendar days after the date of the Notice of Hearing. | 19% | 42 (notice of hearing) 224 (hearing date) |
| Decisions will be issued within 30 calendar days after the completion of the hearing. | 58% | 33 |
The Executive Chair and the Alternate Chair are members of each of the SJTO tribunals. Members with an asterisk (*) are appointed to more than one SJTO tribunal.
| Name | First Appointed | Term Ends |
|---|---|---|
| Michael Gottheil (Executive Chair) | March 2011 | March 2016 |
| Dr. Lilian Ma (Alternate Executive Chair) | March 2011 | March 2016 |
| Name | First Appointed | Term Ends |
|---|---|---|
| Kevin W. Brothers | November 2010 | November 2015 |
| Donald Butler | December 2006 | December 2016 |
| Celia Denov | February 2007 | February 2017 |
| Patrick R. Doran* | May 2007 | May 2017 |
| Judy Finlay | January 2011 | January 2016 |
| Nathalie Fortier* | July 2013 | July 2015 |
| John Gates | October 2005 | October 2016 |
| Suzanne Gilbert (Associate Chair)* | October 2006 | March 2016 |
| Gail Gonda | May 2007 | May 2017 |
| Andrea Himel | November 2010 | November 2015 |
| Heather Hunter | May 2008 | May 2018 |
| Lorna King | April 2006 | April 2016 |
| Alina (Alice) Lazor | May 2008 | May 2018 |
| Robert Lefebvre* | February 2013 | February 2016 |
| Richard Linley | December 2006 | December 2016 |
| Richard Meen | February 2011 | February 2016 |
| Eva Nichols* | February 2013 | August 2016 |
| Michele O'Connor | November 2010 | November 2015 |
| Frances Sanderson | December 2006 | December 2016 |
| Ruth Ann Schedlich | August 2002 | October 2016 |
| Sheena Scott (Vice-Chair) | May 2008 | May 2015 |
| Jayashree (Jay) Sengupta* | July 2014 | September 2018 |
| John F. Spekkens | November 2010 | November 2015 |
| Wendell White | March 1999 | September 2016 |
| Mary Wong | May 2007 | May 2017 |
| Name | First Appointed | Term Ends |
|---|---|---|
| Sarah Atkinson | January 2015 | January 2017 |
| Kim Bernhardt | January 2015 | January 2017 |
| Kenneth Bhattacharjee (Vice-Chair) | September 2008 | September 2018 |
| Catherine Bickley | January 2011 | January 2016 |
| Keith Brennenstuhl* (Vice-Chair) | September 2007 | September 2017 |
| Ruth Carey* | August 2012 | December 2016 |
| Ena Chadha (Vice-Chair) | September 2007 | September 2017 |
| Kevin Cleghorn | January 2011 | January 2016 |
| Brian Cook (Vice-Chair) | September 2008 | September 2018 |
| Genevieve Debane (Vice-Chair) | June 2011 | June 2016 |
| Andrew Diamond | August 2008 | August 2018 |
| Maureen Doyle* (Vice-Chair) | August 2008 | February 2016 |
| Brian Eyolfson (Vice-Chair) | August 2007 | August 2017 |
| Eli Fellman* (Vice-Chair) | December 2014 | December 2015 |
| Michelle Flaherty* | October 2008 | June 2018 |
| Nathalie Fortier* | July 2014 | July 2015 |
| Aida Gatfield | January 2013 | January 2018 |
| Suzanne Gilbert* | December 2012 | March 2016 |
| Yola Grant (Associate Chair) | April 2014 | April 2016 |
| Maurice Green | January 2013 | January 2018 |
| Mark Handelman | August 2008 | August 2018 |
| Beverly Harris | December 2012 | December 2017 |
| Mark Hart (Vice-Chair) | September 2007 | September 2017 |
| Dale Hewat | September 2008 | September 2018 |
| Judith Hinchman | August 2008 | August 2018 |
| Julie Jai | January 2015 | January 2017 |
| Kaye Joachim | December 2005 | September 2015 |
| Colin Johnston | January 2015 | January 2017 |
| Janice Diane Johnston | January 2011 | January 2016 |
| Judith Keene | November 2008 | August 2015 |
| Dawn Kershaw* (Vice-Chair) | October 2012 | May 2015 |
| Robert Lefebvre* | February 2014 | February 2016 |
| Michael Lerner | January 2011 | January 2016 |
| Laurie Letheren (Vice-Chair) | February 2015 | February 2017 |
| Ian Mackenzie | March 2011 | March 2016 |
| Kathleen Martin (Vice-Chair) | June 2006 | September 2017 |
| Yasmeena Mohamed | January 2011 | January 2016 |
| David Muir (Vice-Chair) | August 2008 | August 2018 |
| Eva Nichols* | February 2013 | August 2016 |
| Naomi Overend (Vice-Chair) | September 2008 | September 2018 |
| Jo-Anne Pickel (Vice-Chair) | October 2012 | October 2017 |
| Sheri Price (Vice-Chair) | September 2008 | September 2018 |
| Daniel Randazzo | December 2012 | December 2017 |
| Leslie Reaume (Vice-Chair) | June 2007 | June 2017 |
| Alison Renton (Vice-Chair) | October 2008 | October 2018 |
| Caroline Rowan | October 2005 | October 2016 |
| Douglas Sanderson (Vice-Chair) | January 2011 | January 2016 |
| Janice Sandomirsky | August 2008 | August 2018 |
| Jennifer A. Scott (Vice-Chair) | July 2006 | September 2017 |
| Jayashree (Jay) Sengupta* (Vice-Chair) | September 2008 | September 2018 |
| Brian Sheehan | August 2008 | August 2018 |
| Lorne Slotnick | September 2008 | September 2018 |
| Mary Truemner (Vice-Chair) | September 2008 | September 2018 |
| Rosemary Walden-Stephan* | December 2012 | July 2016 |
| Eric Whist | September 2008 | September 2018 |
| Ailsa Wiggins | August 2008 | August 2018 |
| Name | First Appointed | Term Ends |
|---|---|---|
| Elizabeth Beckett* | February 2001 | April 2017 |
| Joseph A. Berkovits | June 2005 | July 2016 |
| Keith Brennenstuhl* | December 2012 | September 2017 |
| Aleksandar Brkic | March 2015 | March 2017 |
| Vincenza (Enza) Buffa | May 2004 | May 2016 |
| Kim E. Bugby (Co-ordinating Vice-Chair) | September 2004 | May 2018 |
| William Burke | October 2005 | October 2016 |
| Ruth Carey* | December 2006 | December 2016 |
| Sylvie Charron* (Vice-Chair) | October 2012 | October 2017 |
| Vincent Ching | April 2006 | April 2015 |
| Harry Cho | October 2012 | October 2015 |
| Esi Codjoe | January 2015 | January 2017 |
| Brian A. Cormier | April 2006 | May 2016 |
| Emily Crocco | January 2015 | January 2017 |
| Lisa Del Vecchio | January 2015 | January 2017 |
| Thomas F. Fagan* | June 2013 | June 2015 |
| Nancy Fahlgren | June 1998 | June 2016 |
| Eli Fellman* (Vice-Chair) | December 2004 | December 2015 |
| Murray William Graham | June 1998 | July 2015 |
| Petar Guzina | November 2009 | November 2019 |
| Brenna Homeniuk | December 2006 | December 2016 |
| Elke Homsi | March 2006 | February 2016 |
| Louise Horton | June 2009 | June 2019 |
| Greg Joy | June 2005 | June 2016 |
| Anna Jurak* | August 2012 | June 2016 |
| Caroline A. A. King | October 2004 | October 2016 |
| Teddy Kwan | November 2014 | November 2016 |
| Renée Lang | January 2015 | January 2017 |
| Claudette Leslie | April 2006 | April 2016 |
| Kevin Lundy | October 2012 | October 2016 |
| Dr. Lilian Yan Yan Ma* (Associate Chair) | June 2005 | March 2016 |
| Sandra Macchione* | February 2011 | February 2016 |
| Ieva Martin | June 2004 | June 2016 |
| Carol Anne McDermott* | August 2012 | June 2017 |
| James (Jim) McMaster | October 2005 | November 2016 |
| Debbie Mosaheb | February 2011 | February 2016 |
| Robert Murray* | September 2012 | February 2017 |
| Gerald Naud* | October 2004 | October 2016 |
| John Patrick Nolan | November 2006 | May 2019 |
| Nicholas Pernal | January 2015 | January 2017 |
| Jean-Paul Pilon | August 2006 | February 2017 |
| Gobinder Singh Rhandawa | July 2014 | July 2016 |
| Roger Rodrigues | January 2015 | January 2017 |
| Jana Rozehnal | April 2006 | April 2016 |
| Egya Ndayinanse Sangmuah (Vice-Chair) | January 2007 | August 2016 |
| Guy William Savoie (Vice-Chair) | May 2001 | April 2017 |
| Michael Soo | July 2007 | July 2015 |
| Lisa M. Stevens | November 2009 | November 2019 |
| Lynn Stilwell | April 2004 | April 2016 |
| Jeanie Theoharis | December 2006 | December 2016 |
| Mariam Elizabeth Usprich | March 2006 | February 2016 |
| Jonelle Van Delft (Vice-Chair) | November 2004 | June 2017 |
| Karen Wallace (Vice-Chair) | December 2006 | February 2016 |
| Sylvia Nancy Watson | June 2009 | June 2019 |
| Karol Wronecki | January 2007 | January 2017 |
| Name | First Appointed | Term Ends |
|---|---|---|
| Ross Caradonna | May 2008 | May 2018 |
| Maureen Doyle* | August 2013 | February 2016 |
| Suzanne Gilbert* (Vice-Chair) | May 2011 | March 2016 |
| Derryn Gill | April 2005 | June 2015 |
| Julie Lindhout | April 2005 | June 2015 |
| Eva Nichols* | January 2005 | August 2016 |
| Jayashree Sengupta* | August 2012 | September 2018 |
| Name | First Appointed | Term Ends |
|---|---|---|
| Maureen Doyle* | August 2013 | February 2016 |
| Michelle Flaherty* | August 2013 | June 2018 |
| Nathalie Fortier* | July 2014 | July 2015 |
| Suzanne Gilbert* (Vice-Chair) | May 2011 | March 2016 |
| Robert Lefebvre* | January 2005 | February 2016 |
| Name | First Appointed | Term Ends |
|---|---|---|
| Elizabeth Beckett* | August 2012 | April 2017 |
| Terry Brouillet | June 2013 | June 2015 |
| Brian Brown | April 2004 | May 2016 |
| Jean Buie | October 2013 | October 2015 |
| Sylvie Charron* (Vice-Chair) | December 2009 | October 2017 |
| Harold Dolan | August 2013 | August 2015 |
| Patrick Doran* | June 1998 | May 2017 |
| Thomas F. Fagan* | June 2013 | June 2015 |
| Pauline Faubert | November 2014 | November 2016 |
| Nathan Ferguson | June 2006 | June 2017 |
| Lisa Freedman | August 2013 | August 2015 |
| Romona Gananathan | September 2013 | September 2015 |
| Kelly Gaon | August 2008 | June 2015 |
| Cheryl Henshaw | November 2014 | November 2016 |
| Audrey Hummelen (Vice-Chair) | June 2007 | October 2017 |
| Anna Jurak* | May 2004 | June 2016 |
| Dawn Kershaw* | June 2006 | June 2016 |
| Jennifer Khurana | July 2013 | July 2015 |
| Linda Lebourdais | February 2005 | February 2016 |
| Denise Lemmon | March 2005 | March 2016 |
| Sandra Macchione* | November 2006 | November 2016 |
| Janice MacGuigan | May 2008 | May 2018 |
| Sherry MacIsaac | May 2013 | May 2015 |
| Roslynne Mains | January 2003 | February 2016 |
| Allan Matte | February 2014 | February 2016 |
| Carol Anne McDermott* | June 2007 | June 2017 |
| Beverly Moore (Associate Chair) | October 2006 | September 2015 |
| Robert Murray* (Vice-Chair) | May 2004 | February 2016 |
| William Murray | June 2008 | November 2017 |
| Marilyn Mushinski | June 2004 | July 2016 |
| Gerald Naud* | March 2015 | October 2016 |
| Monica Purdy | March 2005 | March 2016 |
| Josephine Racioppo | September 2013 | September 2015 |
| Margaret Reynolds | April 2006 | April 2016 |
| Tony Riccio | October 2005 | November 2015 |
| Sherene Shaw | February 2005 | February 2016 |
| Richard Simpson | October 2005 | October 2016 |
| Holly Solomon | June 2013 | June 2015 |
| Jonelle Van Delft* (Vice-Chair) | February 2015 | June 2017 |
| Rosemary Walden-Stephan* | February 2001 | July 2016 |