2015 marked the five-year anniversary of SJTO. When SJTO was designated as Ontario's second tribunal cluster in 2011, many stakeholders and people working within the seven tribunals asked why. Beyond the potential for financial savings through back office consolidation, what was the thread that connected these seven tribunals? After five years, a few key discoveries:
Not one single thread, but multiple threads stretch across the tribunals – perhaps the most significant being a shared commitment to address barriers to access to justice. These barriers may be procedural, informational or cultural. They may be faced by people with mental health issues and other disabilities, or by children and youth, or by people living in poverty. There are also threads of opportunity that connect us: professional development, inclusive technology, and partnerships with legal and non-legal organizations. Career opportunities have expanded for staff and members and SJTO is benefitting from an exchange of expertise.
These common threads not only tie us together, they motivate and energize a remarkable team of staff and members. Over the past five years, through their expertise and commitment, SJTO has become recognized as a leader in the administrative justice sector. This means that year after year, we have been able to capitalize on opportunities, wrestle down challenges and continue on a path of transformation and innovation.
As usual, 2015-16 was a year of change. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) joined our organization; a number of staff and members retired or left, with new people joining the team; and we developed and adopted a new operational plan.
The CICB brought a new area of administrative justice work and a unique mandate to SJTO. The board assesses claims for compensation for injury suffered by victims of violent crime. Members and staff are expert in addressing the needs of people who have suffered serious trauma, and who often feel the justice system has failed, or forgotten them. People who apply to the CICB are often marginalized by race, disability, gender identity and expression, and economic disadvantage. These communities are familiar to all of our tribunals and we welcome the addition of the CICB's experience and expertise.
2015-16 saw the departure of many staff and members from SJTO. A number of staff, including senior leaders, either retired or announced their intention to retire. Similarly, many adjudicators announced their retirement, or are moving on as a result of the "ten-year rule", a cap on the length of appointments.
The departure of team members and friends is hard. At the same time it is a period of transition and renewal. We have been engaged in a major recruitment drive, with a focus on building our capacity and diversity. We have been extremely fortunate to have so many highly qualified people apply for positions and we have recruited an amazing cadre of new staff and members. I believe the interest in these positions demonstrates that SJTO is a place people want to work.
This past year we developed a new operational plan. The process and the product were equally exciting. From the outset, we engaged staff and members. We wanted to gather knowledge and experience from the people who work in the tribunals and interact directly with the public. We wanted to know what initiatives they believed would make their jobs easier and foster fair and accessible justice.
We came up with 17 initiatives which demonstrate SJTO's position as a leader in the justice sector. Our operational plan reflects who we are, how far we have come and where we want to be in the future.
There was an amazing amount of consensus on the things we felt were important as an organization. Professional development continues to be a key focus, as does merit based recruitment that truly values diversity in the broadest sense of the word. We will be using technology to be more efficient, and to make our services more accessible. We are linking with community and other justice sector partners, like community health and legal clinics. We want to make sure we are reaching the people who need our services and that they can also get support which may help them in finding long term, sustainable resolution of problems. And we are taking up the challenge in the Calls to Action set out in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's reports on the legacy of residential schools.
In these and other ways, we are committed to our goals: to provide fair and accessible justice; to be responsive to evolution of the law and society, and to be leaders in the justice sector.
Michael Gottheil, Executive Chair
Social Justice Tribunals Ontario
On April 1, SJTO welcomed the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB). The CICB assesses financial compensation for victims of violent crime committed in Ontario and for the family members of deceased victims.
Aside from its unique mandate, CICB is different from other SJTO tribunals in another important way: there are no paper files. Since 2013, all CICB case file documents are either received in electronic format or scanned as soon as they are received. The members take only their laptop into the hearing room.
Soon after joining SJTO, the CICB's associate chair shared the benefits of electronic case files with other SJTO leaders – members don't have to carry volumes of paper; they can navigate quickly between tabs in the file and type notes. And if a board member is unavailable, another one can access the file from a shared drive.
Along with all of the benefits for staff and members of going paperless, the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) had another reason – there will simply not be room to store paper case files when the tribunal moves to new offices in fall 2016. Inspired by CICB's success, the SBT started scanning all new, incoming appeals into electronic format on January 1, 2016. You can read more about this project in the SBT section of this report.
Meanwhile, the CICB needed to replace its 20 year old case management system which stores and tracks data about applicants and their cases. The CICB determined that the system the SBT uses was a good fit and have begun customizing it for their needs.
These are two great examples of "sharing what works" among tribunals to deliver fair, accessible justice.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention the launch of e-filing at the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) this year. It was truly a milestone achievement.
The LTB is the busiest tribunal in Canada. This year, they received more than 80,000 applications. From the launch of e-File on July 13, 2015 to March 31, 2016, nearly 15% of all LTB applications were filed using e-File. That works out to 11,788 applications.
People who used LTB e-File benefitted in multiple ways. They didn't need to drive to an office to submit their application, or even take the time to print and fax it in. And they could book the first available hearing date online. You can read more about the success of LTB e-File in the LTB section of this report.
Providing effective, timely and accessible justice and being a leader in the administrative justice community are SJTO values. Electronic case files, electronic filing, video-hearings and email communication are examples of how SJTO staff and members are embracing technological change as one way to bring those values to life.
Ellen Wexler, Executive Lead
Social Justice Tribunals Ontario
Social Justice Tribunals Ontario (SJTO) is a group of eight 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 justice to thousands of Ontarians.
The tribunals of the SJTO are: Child and Family Services Review Board, Criminal Injuries Compensation 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. We assess and award compensation for victims of violent crime.
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, victims' compensation, 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
On April 1, 2015, CICB became the eighth tribunal of SJTO. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) assesses financial compensation for victims and family members of deceased victims of violent crimes. The CICB receives about 3,500 applications per year and holds hearings in 20 locations across the province.
While each of the tribunals within SJTO has a different mandate, many of our applicants are unrepresented, live in poverty and/or come from marginalized communities, and CICB applicants are no exception.
At the end of 2014-15, we launched the SJTO web portal (sjto.ca). The Custody Review Board, Social Benefits Tribunal, Ontario Special Education Tribunal and Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario sites were part of the portal at launch. The new site is written in simpler language, is more accessible to users with disabilities and is easier to navigate on mobile devices.
The Child and Family Services Review Board joined the portal in May 2015 and the Landlord and Tenant Board joined in July 2015. CICB will join the site in 2016-17.
The SJTO portal had 563,571 users and 2,646,144 page views in 2015 -16. These numbers exclude users in the Ontario government.
| Tribunal site on the sjto.ca portal | Number of users in 2015-16, excluding Ontario government |
|---|---|
| LTB English | 467,869 |
| SJTO English | 89,326 |
| HRTO English | 65,601 |
| SBT English | 16,086 |
| CFSRB English | 8,723 |
| LTB French (CLI) | 4,203 |
| OSET English | 3,726 |
| CRB English | 1,870 |
| HRTO French (TDPO) | 1,450 |
About 78.5% of page views were to pages on the LTB site, 9.5 % were to pages on the HRTO site with the remaining 12% divided between the rest of the tribunals and SJTO's corporate pages.
Seventy percent (70%) of users were on desktop, while 23% were on mobile and the remaining 7% used tablets.
We began converting all of our PDFs (excluding forms) to HTML format on the web. HTML offers easy navigation for people using screen readers and uses less data than a PDF download, which is important for the 23% of SJTO web visitors on mobile devices. HTML documents can be saved to a computer the same as any other file format.
This year, we converted 200 French and English PDF documents to HTML format and posted them on the site. Another 200 PDFs are still outstanding.
The currency, accuracy, and consistency of the converted documents was improved during the project by correcting errors, removing outdated references, standardizing formatting and adding or updating links.
We are starting to expand the use of email as a way for parties to communicate with our tribunals. In spring 2015, SBT and LTB began using email for case inquiries. Both tribunals are planning to evaluate the pilots, consult with stakeholders, and make adjustments to the protocols, before offering the service province-wide. HRTO has always used email to answer inquiries and communicate with parties.
Planning for the move of SJTO's downtown Toronto to 25 Grosvenor St. continued in 2015-16.
Co-location is occurring in two phases. In phase 1, Toronto staff and members from all SJTO tribunals, except for the Landlord and Tenant Board, will move to Grosvenor St. Corporate services staff are also a part of the phase 1 move. In phase 2, public spaces, service counters, hearing rooms, and the Landlord and Tenant Board's Toronto South office will relocate to the renovated facility.
In the past year, detailed drawings for the design of office space for phase 1 and preliminary designs for the phase 2 public spaces were completed. Being at a single location means the tribunals will share facilities and equipment for video and telephone hearings and some administrative services, like security, mailroom and file storage. As a result, SJTO began updating business processes to ensure that operations will run efficiently at the new location.
Staff and members who are a part of phase 1 are expected to move into the renovated space in September and October 2016. Phase 2 of the co-location project is expected to be complete in late 2017.
SJTO has a professional development program for adjudicators and mediators that is unique in Canada. The program includes new member training, a professional development conference, specialized sessions, 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 Professional Development Institute", a conference for SJTO's 200 adjudicators and mediators, was held for the fourth time in June 2015. The theme was "Getting the story out; taking the story in". This year's event included:
Thirty-one 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.
In summer 2015 SJTO conducted an adjudicator diversity survey. In a justice organization which addresses such a wide range of personal, social and economic issues, diversity helps us carry out our work. It is also important that our membership reflect the diverse population we serve. About 25% of members who responded to the survey said they were non-white, 17% identified as being a person with a disability, 11.5% were Francophone, and 11% identified as gay, lesbian, two-spirited or questioning. More than 90% of SJTO members (adjudicators) took the survey. Collecting this data is a first and necessary step towards creating a more diverse organization. We plan to conduct the survey every two years.
In March, a new page called How to get information from an SJTO file was added to the SJTO website. It explains what a Freedom of Information (FOI) request is and when and how to make one. Having this information on our website ensures our policy and practices for releasing information are consistent and transparent. We also created and posted an FOI request form. People don't have to use the request form, but they can if they want to.
Bilingual adjudicators and staff of SJTO, Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario, and Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario gathered for French language training in Toronto on March 7 and 8. The training included sessions on tools and resources for bilingual professionals, and workshops tailored for staff and adjudicators.
An SJTO working group is working with the Justice Sector French Language Services Office to develop resources and professional development opportunities for adjudicators and staff.
One of the resources is a French-English lexicon of general administrative tribunal terms. Tribunals are also developing tribunal-specific lexicons which reflect their unique legislation and processes.
In November, SJTO launched a job shadow program for staff. The program offers participants a chance to be exposed to another part of SJTO and learn about a different position. Twenty-one participants were selected by lottery from 68 applications to shadow seven roles. Job shadow assignments took place in February and March 2016. In the next 12 months, the program will be evaluated and another round of job shadowing will follow.
Because SJTO has more than 350 staff members working in 14 locations, it is difficult to get everyone together in the same place. For that reason, two all-staff meetings were held by video-conference. Topics at the meetings included updates on employee engagement, the operational plan and training. Local, in-person staff meetings followed the virtual meetings to allow for brainstorming and discussion.
OSET (English) received one application this year which was resolved through mediation. The OSETs continue to respond to email and telephone inquiries and provide information and forms through the website.
Effective September 8, 2015, Beverly Moore was appointed as an Alternate Executive Chair of SJTO. The role of the alternate executive chair is to act in the place of the executive chair if they are unable to act or if the position is vacant.
Effective March 7, 2016, Michael Gottheil was reappointed for another 5-year term as the Executive Chair of SJTO.
Effective March 23, 2016, Kim Bugby was appointed as the new Associate Chair of the LTB. Kim was designated as LTB's Coordinating Vice-Chair in October 2013, and appointed as Acting Associate Chair in September 2015.
Access to justice, diversity and inclusion are core values of SJTO. We are committed to an inclusive work environment that reflects Ontario's diversity and to designing barrier-free policies, processes and services.
Commitments to accessibility and inclusion are found in SJTO's mission and values, our Code of Conduct and our business plan.
In 2015-16, SJTO improved access by:
In 2015-16, SJTO supported diversity by:
| Applications/Appeals Received | Applications/Appeals Resolved | |
|---|---|---|
| Landlord and Tenant Board | 79,739 | 77,773 |
| Social Benefits Tribunal | 11,318 | 13,038 |
| Criminal Injuries Compensation Board | 3,706 | 3,511 |
| Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario | 3,357 | 3,234 |
| Child and Family Services Review Board | 322 | 263 |
| Custody Review Board | 93 | 90 |
| Ontario Special Education Tribunals (English and French) | 1 | 0 |
| Total | 98,536 | 97,909 |
SJTO has:
| Expenditures (See below for category definitions) | 2015-16 SJTO* |
2014-15 CICB |
2014-15 SJTO |
2013-14 CICB |
2013-14 SJTO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Salaries and Wages | 33,985,717 | 3,175,301 | 29,588,414 | 3,297,415 | 30,253,209 |
| Employee Benefits | 4,760,630 | 502,853 | 3,977,159 | 563,348 | 4,389,513 |
| Transportation & Communications | 2,312,631 | 437,314 | 2,114,840 | 505,814 | 2,281,703 |
| Services | 7,000,840 | 756,875 | 7,461,634 | 762,798 | 7,534,310 |
| Part-time Members Per Diem | 3,127,691 | 1,440,603 | 1,868,324 | 1,531,351 | 1,793,410 |
| Supplies & Equipment | 680,299 | 39,771 | 572,683 | 52,224 | 609,028 |
| Total | $51,867,808 | $6,352,717 | $45,583,054 | $6,712,950 | $46,861,173 |
| Awards for Victims of Violent Crime | 2015-16** | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Awards for Victims of Violent Crime | $27,304,999 | $24,156,468 | $24,355,136 |
* Includes CICB. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) joined the Social Justice Tribunals Ontario as of April 1, 2015. The expenditures for 2015-16 include expenditures for CICB while previous years do not.
** The caseload for the CICB increased by 12% in 2015-16 resulting in a corresponding increase in transfer payments.
Note: In 2015-16, CICB deposited $285,963 in the consolidated revenue fund for monies recovered by applicants through civil actions, pursuant to s.26(5.1) of the CVCA.
| Revenue | 2015-16 | 2014-15* | 2013-14* |
|---|---|---|---|
| Landlord and Tenant Board application filing fees (Deposited in the Consolidated Revenue Fund) | $11,634,727 | $11,800,405 | $12,038,725 |
* Financial information for 2013-14 and 2014-15 has been updated from the previous annual report to reflect final adjustments.
Category Definitions
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 CFSRB can hear appeals about the expulsion of students by school boards.
Under the Intercountry Adoption Act, the CFSRB can review:
The CFSRB worked on brochures that provide information for people submitting three types of applications: review of a removal of a crown ward; refusal of an application to adopt; and complaints against children's aid society.
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 assigned one member to section 68 hearings, "Complaints about the Services of a Children's Aid Society", and has assigned more two-member panels for other application types, resulting in a more effective use of resources and a significant reduction in part-time member per diem costs and travel expenses.
The CFSRB has continued to support the work of SJTO's new Child and Youth Division. The division is working to ensure cases involving children and youth at the SJTO are dealt with in a coordinated way.
In November 2015, the CFSRB started a pilot with a small group of members to use electronic files to conduct mediations for complaints about the services of a children's aid society. Paper files were still created and stored but members received only the electronic version. The pilot was a success and the following month the remaining members were trained to mediate complaints about the services of a children's aid society using electronic case files. In March 2016, the CFSRB stopped creating and storing paper case files for complaints about the services of a children's aid society.
Also in March 2016, the CFSRB eliminated paper files for applications requesting an order to release a child or youth from an emergency secure treatment program. These case files are now handled in electronic format.
Electronic files save on printing, storage and courier costs and make it easy for staff and members to access the files anytime from anywhere.
The CFSRB is working on a new way of scheduling settlement facilitation conferences. In the coming year, selected children's aid societies will be invited to participate in a brief scheduling conference call early in the process. It is hoped that the scheduling conference call will reduce the time spent finding a suitable hearing date.
The CFSRB received 322 applications: 6 (or 2%) fewer than last fiscal.
The number of applications received was stable for almost all types of applications except for requests to review a removal of a crown ward (foster child). Last year, this type of application increased by almost 100%, from 13 to 23. This year, the number fell to 8. The number of applications to request a review of a refusal to adopt also decreased from 18 to 9.
The number of applications to complain about the services of a Children's Aid Society has increased slightly by 8%. The unusually large number of these applications still active at the end of the year may be due to a larger intake of applications close to the end of the year, as well as fewer applications being withdrawn or abandoned.
| Application Type | 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 61 of the CFSA - Removal of a Crown Ward | 8 | 23 | 13 |
| Section 68 of the CFSA - Complaints Against a Children's Aid Society | 251 | 231 | 248 |
| Section 144 of the CFSA - Refusal of Application to Adopt or Refusal to Approve a Proposed Adoption Placement | 9 | 18 | 17 |
| Section 311.7 of the Education Act - School Board Expulsion Appeals | 17 | 13 | 12 |
| Section 124 of the CFSA - Review of Emergency Secure Treatment Admission (ESTA) | 31 | 37 | 45 |
| Section 36 of the CFSA - Review of Residential Placement (ARRP) | 6 | 7 | 6 |
| Section 5 & 6 of the Intercountry Adoption Act - Intercountry Adoption Applications (Refusal to Adopt Outside of Canada) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 322 | 329 | 341 |
| 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applications Received | 8 | 23 | 13 |
| Applications Completed | 13 | 22 | 11 |
| – abandoned | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| – withdrawn | 3 | 6 | 4 |
| – dismissed/ineligible | 2 | 8 | 2 |
| – resolved at mediation | 7 | 1 | 1 |
| – resolved at hearing (decision released) | 0 | 5 | 2 |
| – other | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Active applications at year-end | 0 | 5 | 4 |
| 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applications Received | 251 | 231 | 248 |
| Applications Completed | 196 | 267 | 245 |
| – abandoned | 14 | 34 | 42 |
| – withdrawn | 13 | 33 | 39 |
| – dismissed/ineligible | 19 | 22 | 19 |
| – resolved at settlement facilitation | 123 | 141 | 116 |
| – resolved at hearing (decision released) | 22 | 24 | 23 |
| – other | 5 | 13 | 6 |
| Active applications at year-end | 103 | 48 | 84 |
| 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applications Received | 9 | 18 | 17 |
| Applications Completed | 10 | 14 | 14 |
| – abandoned | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| – withdrawn | 1 | 9 | 4 |
| – dismissed/ineligible | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| – resolved at mediation | 4 | 0 | 2 |
| – resolved at hearing (decision released) | 3 | 2 | 6 |
| – other | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Active applications at year-end | 5 | 6 | 2 |
| 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applications Received | 6 | 7 | 6 |
| Applications Completed | 3 | 6 | 7 |
| – abandoned | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| – withdrawn | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| – dismissed/ineligible | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| – resolved at mediation | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| – resolved at hearing (decision released) | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| – other | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Active applications at year-end | 4 | 1 | 0 |
| 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applications Received | 31 | 37 | 45 |
| Applications Completed | 32 | 36 | 48 |
| – abandoned | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| – withdrawn | 24 | 25 | 34 |
| – dismissed/ineligible | 0 | 1 | 5 |
| – resolved at mediation | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| – resolved at hearing (decision released) | 8 | 10 | 9 |
| – other | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Active applications at year-end | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appeals Received | 17 | 13 | 12 |
| Applications Completed | 15 | 14 | 12 |
| – abandoned | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| – withdrawn | 3 | 7 | 7 |
| – dismissed/ineligible | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| – resolved at mediation | 7 | 6 | 2 |
| – resolved at hearing (decision released) | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| – other | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Active applications at year-end | 4 | 2 | 3 |
| 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 is deemed eligible | 65% | 42 |
| CFSA Section 68 hearings will be scheduled within 60 calendar days after the application is deemed eligible | 45% | 74 |
| CFSA Section 36 hearings will be scheduled within 20 calendar days of receipt of the application | 100% | 6 |
| CFSA Section 61 and Section 144 hearings will be scheduled within 20 calendar days after the application has been deemed eligible | 100% | 10 |
| Appeals of school board expulsion hearings will be scheduled within 30 calendar days of receipt of the notice of appeal | 100% | 23 |
| 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 | 50% | 15 |
| Appeals of school board expulsion decisions will be issued within 30 calendar days after the hearing has been completed | 100% | 22 |
| CFSA Section 68 applications: Decisions or orders will be issued within 30 calendar days of the completion of the hearing | 89% | 18 |
| All other CFSA applications: Orders will be issued within 10 calendar days after the hearing has been completed | 100% | 5 |
The CICB assesses financial compensation for victims of violent crime committed in Ontario and for the family members of deceased victims.
The CICB can compensate victims for pain and suffering, loss of income, treatment expenses, funeral expenses and other costs that result from being a victim of the crime.
The CICB is committed to the principles of the Victims' Bill of Rights, 1995, which states that all victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their personal dignity and privacy.
The CICB is established under the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.
On April 1, 2015, the CICB became the 8th tribunal of Social Justice Tribunals Ontario (SJTO). SJTO is committed to providing fair and accessible justice and the CICB continues to provide excellent service and support to victims of crime under the SJTO umbrella.
Since joining SJTO, the CICB has started using SJTO hearing sites in some locations instead of using hotels. These hearing locations are cost-effective for the board and safe and accessible for participants. CICB members also participated in SJTO-wide training on effective decision writing and managing hearings with self-represented parties.
The Ontario government is bringing tribunals together in clusters so they can benefit from the combined resources and expertise of the larger group, while remaining independent in their decision-making.
In September 2015 the CICB began to develop a new case management system. The current case management system is 20 years old and runs on obsolete software and hardware. No improvements can be made to the system and as the system ages, the possibility of losing data and records increases.
To address these problems, the CICB purchased a customizable off-the-shelf product called Evans My CaseLoad which is also used by the Social Benefits Tribunal and the Child and Family Services Review Board. The new system will help CICB streamline its processes, manage a growing caseload and improve reporting. The CICB is working closely with its government partners at Justice Technology Services and the vendor to develop business workflows, mail merge, and reports. The new system should be up and running in August 2016.
In January 2016, the CICB introduced three improvements to its case management processes:
In March 2016, the Ontario government passed amendments to the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act which eliminated the 2-year limitation period for applying to the CICB for a crime of domestic or sexual violence. The amendments were introduced under the government's Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act. Victims of sexual and domestic violence can now apply to the CICB at any time, regardless of when the crime occurred.
Before the amendments, the CICB could extend the 2-year period, but claimants needed to request an extension by giving reasons for the delay on the application form.
The CICB expects that as a result of the change, fewer cases will require an extension review, meaning that those claimants could have an earlier hearing.
In January 2016, the CICB started entering applications into the system as soon as they were received. This change resulted in a one-time spike in the number of applications recorded as received. The 12% increase in applications this year may be a result of the increase in applications entered in the system rather than an increase in those received.
The distribution of applications by region stayed fairly consistent with a slight shift from West to Central West this year. Similar to previous years, 58% of applications were submitted by female claimants. People from 35 to 64 years old continue to represent the largest group of applicants to the CICB.
The number of written hearings increased by 4% over last year.
The amount awarded in compensation has been consistent over the last three years. The 6.8% decrease in the awards is in line with the 6.5% decrease in hearings. With $23.6 million in awards, "pain and suffering" continues to be the largest compensation category.
| 2015-16* | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applications received | 3706 | 3310 | 3414 |
| Cases closed | 3511 | 4024 | 3485 |
| Active cases at year-end | 4266 | 3986 | 4580 |
| Case processing time (days) | 326 | 326 | 351 |
* In Jan. 2016, the CICB started entering applications into the system as soon as they were received. This change increased the number of applications recorded as received and may not reflect a true increase.
| Resolution Type | 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissed on a preliminary basis | 363 | 586 | 410 |
| Extension Denied | 80 | 69 | 84 |
| Other* | 50 | 43 | 16 |
| Refused to accept | 57 | 31 | 40 |
| Resolved at hearing | 2898 | 3102 | 3211 |
* Closed administratively, duplicate, applicant died.
| 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Award granted | 96% | 94% | 92% |
| Denied | 4% | 6% | 8% |
* Based on decisions following a hearing.
| Region | 2015-16 | % of Total | 2014-15 | % of Total | 2013-14 | % of Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Toronto | 729 | 20% | 688 | 21% | 699 | 20% |
| North | 492 | 13% | 363 | 11% | 473 | 14% |
| East | 675 | 18% | 579 | 17% | 595 | 17% |
| Central East | 572 | 15% | 494 | 15% | 477 | 14% |
| West | 549 | 15% | 695 | 21% | 530 | 16% |
| Central West | 689 | 19% | 491 | 15% | 640 | 19% |
| Total | 3706 | 3310 | 3414 |
| Gender | 2015-16 | % of Total | 2014-15 | % of Total | 2013-14 | % of Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 1519 | 41% | 1344 | 41% | 1499 | 44% |
| Female | 2153 | 58% | 1966 | 59% | 1915 | 56% |
| Not Specified | 34 | 1% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
| Total | 3706 | 3310 | 3414 |
| Age | 2015-16 | % of Total | 2014-15 | % of Total | 2013-14 | % of Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 - 17 years | 415 | 11% | 324 | 10% | 386 | 11% |
| 18 - 34 years | 1371 | 37% | 1265 | 38% | 1375 | 40% |
| 35 - 64 years | 1792 | 48% | 1617 | 49% | 1548 | 45% |
| 65+ years | 128 | 3% | 104 | 3% | 105 | 3% |
| Total | 3706 | 3310 | 3414 |
| 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oral | 1939 | 2184 | 2280 |
| Written | 959 | 918 | 931 |
| Total | 2898 | 3102 | 3211 |
| Type of Benefit Award ($000s) | 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pain and suffering | $23,620.50 | $26,040.40 | $23,809.40 |
| Loss of wages | $422.60 | $409.30 | $429.70 |
| Medical expenses | $630.20 | $945.30 | $937.90 |
| Funeral expenses | $380.20 | $236.70 | $236.60 |
| Legal expenses associated with application | $68.50 | $96.20 | $85.40 |
| Other pecuniary loss | $192.70 | $143.30 | $112.20 |
| Other | $1,822.30 | $1,234.90 | $1,201.10 |
| Total | $27,137.00 | $29,106.10 | $26,812.30 |
| Offence Type | 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual assault, adult | $10,803,060 | $12,187,178 | $10,635,180 |
| Assault | $7,186,908 | $8,374,711 | $7,839,167 |
| Domestic assault | $3,882,579 | $4,141,373 | $3,633,491 |
| Sexual assault and domestic assault | $702,700 | $1,025,978 | $1,103,017 |
| Sexual assault, child | $881,640 | $610,537 | $912,580 |
| Murder | $1,273,923 | $756,691 | $889,113 |
| Assault of a police officer | $302,412 | $232,940 | $173,966 |
| Other | $776,767 | $571,897 | $363,646 |
| Total | $25,809,989 | $27,901,305 | $25,550,160 |
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 11 months (330 days). | 67% | 309 |
| Written decisions will be released within 60 days of the hearing. When an award is granted, the payment will be included with the decision. | 89% | 44 |
| Oral decisions will be issued at the conclusion of the hearing. When an award is granted, the payment will be released within 30 days. | 89% | 26 |
The Custody Review Board (CRB) 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.
On March 1, 2016, the CRB began storing all new applications and supporting documents in electronic format. No more paper files are being created.
The intake process is still done over the phone and there are no changes to the CRB hearing process.
Electronic files save on printing, storage and courier costs and make it easy for staff and members to access the files anytime from anywhere.
The CRB saw a slight increase in its applications this year. The number of applications seems to have stabilized and remains low, possibly in part due to the decreasing numbers of youth in custody.
The three most common issues youth raised in their CRB applications this year were, in order of frequency:
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 five years.
Over the last year, the CRB asked youth to self-identify on racial or ethnic grounds. More than 80% self-identified. About 45% identified as African Canadian. This information helps the CRB shape its inquiry based on the social context of the youth.
| 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applications received | 93 | 84 | 99 |
| Applications completed | 90 | 86 | 98 |
| Active cases at year-end | 3 | 0 | 2 |
| Case processing time (days) | 16 | 20 | 26 |
| Resolution Type | 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Withdrawn | 13 | 12 | 13 |
| Closed because the youth was moved or released (No jurisdiction) | 26 | 22 | 29 |
| Resolved by recommendations | 45 | 50 | 56 |
| Other | 6 | 2 | 0 |
| Total | 90 | 86 | 98 |
| 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inquiries held | 91 | 82 | 92 |
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 |
| Where the board intends to hold a hearing it will advise the young person within 10 calendar days of the receipt of the application | No hearings held | N/A |
| Recommendations will be issued within 30 calendar days of receipt of the application | 100% | 18 |
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.
People submitting an application to the HRTO or responding to an application have had the option of using the electronic SmartForm since 2008. SmartForms have several advantages over paper: users make fewer mistakes, the forms can be saved, printed and submitted electronically, and they are processed more quickly.
In November, the HRTO made its SmartForms easier to use. Previously, users needed to attach their completed SmartForm to an email. Now, SmartForms can be sent directly through the internet, without an email account. Users also receive an automatic confirmation with a reference number that includes the date and time of their submission.
About 25-30% of applications are filed using SmartForm.
In November, HRTO started holding its first telephone mediations. Reduced travel time, convenience and potentially lower legal costs (because of time saved) are some of the potential benefits for parties, mediators and representatives alike.
The HRTO is scheduling teleconference mediations when both parties are represented by a lawyer or paralegal. Cases with representatives were chosen for the pilot so that the parties would have easy access to fax machine and/or email and scanner, allowing for settlement documents to be signed and exchanged.
The HRTO will be watching to make sure that the settlement rate for telephone mediations is around the same as for in-person mediations where both parties are represented, around 47%.
Three full-time members (vice-chairs) and three part-time members volunteered to pilot the telephone mediations.
About 110 mediations were held from November to March, which accounted for about 18% of all mediations at the HRTO during that time.
The HRTO hosted delegations from the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. Associate Chair Yola Grant presented to members of the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal on HRTO case law, and the challenges of the new human rights system, while Vice Chair Mark Hart presented to members of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on active adjudication.
Participation in the legal communityVice Chair Jo-Anne Pickel presented on the impact of the decision Weber v. Ontario Hydro on a statutory tribunal at a conference hosted by the Centre for Law in the Contemporary Workplace, Queen's University. Associate Chair Yola Grant presented "HRTO Initiatives to Balance Transparency, Privacy, Expediency in the Digital Age" as part of the Ontario Bar Association's Institute 2016.
| 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applications received | 3,357 | 3,259 | 3,242 |
| Cases reactivated | 18 | 28 | 31 |
| Cases closed | 3,234 | 3,179 | 3,341 |
| Active cases at year-end | 3,242* | 3,101 | 2,993 |
| Case processing time (days)** | 326 | 338 | 365 |
* Of the "Active cases at year-end", 467 are "deferred" or put on hold until another proceeding outside the HRTO has dealt with the issue.
** The average time from when the application was accepted to when the file was closed.
| Type of Decision | 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Final decision on the merits | 113 | 110 | 143 |
| — Discrimination found | 39 | 43 | 56 |
| — Discrimination not found | 74 | 67 | 87 |
| Interim decisions (address procedural issues) | 817 | 797 | 525 |
| Reconsideration | 149 | 159 | 151 |
| Breach of settlement | 23 | 21 | 24 |
The HRTO issued 1,535 Case Assessment Directions in 2015-16. Case Assessment Directions deal with procedural issues.
| Postal Code | 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eastern (K) | 11% | 12% | 13% |
| Central (L) | 36% | 38% | 38% |
| Toronto (M) | 26% | 25% | 24% |
| Western (N) | 18% | 17% | 17% |
| Northern (P) | 6% | 5% | 6% |
| Other | 3% | 3% | 2% |
Some applications allege discrimination in more than one social area, so the totals exceed 100%.
| Social Area | 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employment | 70% | 74% | 74% |
| Goods, Services and Facilities | 25% | 22% | 22% |
| Housing | 6% | 7% | 6% |
| Contracts | 1% | 2% | 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 | 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disability | 55% | 56% | 54% |
| Reprisal | 23% | 26% | 27% |
| Race | 20% | 20% | 22% |
| Colour | 16% | 14% | 16% |
| Age | 13% | 14% | 13% |
| Ethnic Origin | 14% | 15% | 17% |
| Place of Origin | 14% | 12% | 15% |
| Family Status | 11% | 12% | 13% |
| Ancestry | 9% | 10% | 13% |
| Sex, Pregnancy & Sexual Harassment | 20% | 21% | 25% |
| Sexual Solicitation or Advances | 6% | 5% | 8% |
| Sexual Orientation | 4% | 4% | 8% |
| Gender Identity | 4% | 4% | 7% |
| Gender Expression | 3% | 2% | 5% |
| Creed | 5% | 6% | 8% |
| Marital Status | 6% | 6% | 8% |
| Association | 4% | 5% | 5% |
| Citizenship | 6% | 4% | 6% |
| Record of Offences | 3% | 3% | 3% |
| Receipt of Public Assistance | 2% | 1% | 2% |
| No grounds | 6% | 6% | 4% |
| 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mediations held | 1,584 | 1,459 | 1,562 |
| Settled at mediation | 58% | 59% | 59% |
| 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |
|---|---|---|---|
Applicant representation
|
36% 22% 2% 40% 2% |
32% 30% 3% 35% 5% |
32% 31% 3% 34% 4% |
Respondent representation
|
85% 1% 13% 1% |
86% 1% 13% 2% |
85% 2% 13% 2% |
| 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |
|---|---|---|---|
Applicant representation
|
28% 7% 5% 53% 7% |
28% 12% 4% 48% 8% |
29% 8% 5% 52% 6% |
Respondent representation
|
86% 3% 9% 2% |
86% 2% 9% 3% |
84% 3% 9% 4% |
The goal is to meet the service standard 80% of the time.
The commitment to issue decisions for hearings which take longer than 3 days within 180 days was met only 36% of the time. Because hearings that took more than 3 days to complete accounted for only 5% of hearings, the low compliance has limited impact on the HRTO's overall performance. Through recruitment and training, the HRTO is working to improve in this area so that all parties can have confidence in the system.
| 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. | 97% | 90 |
| 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. | 59% | 161 |
| 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. | 76% | 86 |
| Decisions for hearings which take longer than 3 days, will be issued within 180 calendar days. | 36% | 300 |
The Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB):
The Landlord and Tenant Board is established under the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
In July 2015, LTB started serving the Notice of Hearing and the application to both the applicant and the respondent. Previously, the applicant had to serve these documents on the respondent and then submit a certificate of service to the LTB.
In March 2016, the LTB improved the process further based on feedback from users.
While most people continued to receive their Notice of Hearing package in the mail, two changes were made:
Landlords who apply to increase the rent above the guideline or to vary the amount of a rent reduction and non-profit housing co-operatives who apply to evict a tenant were not affected by these changes. They continue to serve the Notice of Hearing and the application.
In April, the LTB released updated versions of forms, notices and the accompanying instructions for completing them. Formatting changes made the forms more accessible and easier to understand. Many of the changes were made as a result of suggestions by the public, LTB members and LTB staff.
Starting in October 2015, some parties began leaving their hearing with an order in hand at LTB's Southwest, Central and Toronto North offices. LTB members (adjudicators) at these locations are testing a new process for issuing two types of orders in the hearing room:
The members write the orders by hand using a template.
Previously, the member would write the order after the hearing and then staff would mail copies to the parties, a process which can take several days.
From October 2015 to the end of March 2016, LTB members issued 668 orders in the hearing room. Feedback has been very positive and, as a next step, the LTB plans to provide portable printers so that members can complete and print the orders from a laptop instead of by hand.
Same day orders is one way the LTB is improving access to fair and timely dispute resolution. The LTB intends to roll out this initiative province-wide next fiscal year.
The LTB continues to conduct case management hearings (CMHs) for Applications about Tenant Rights (T2) and Tenant Applications about Maintenance (T6) at its Toronto South and Southern (Hamilton) offices. In August 2015, consultation meetings were held with staff and parties who have participated in CMHs at both offices. An internal working group at the LTB is using feedback from the meetings to explore ways to improve and expand the process.
In October 2015, the LTB launched a new-and-improved version of its "Check File Status" tool. By entering the postal code of the rental property and the file number, landlords and tenants can find out the date, time and location of their next hearing and find out if an order has been issued, without having to call the board. From October 2015 – March 2016, the page was visited nearly 38,000 times and was the 7th most popular page on the LTB website.
On July 13 2015, the LTB launched e-File, allowing landlords and tenants across Ontario to file the most common LTB applications online, anytime from anywhere.
The e-File tool guides users through a series of steps, and then generates an application. Landlords and tenants can also pay the filing fees online and schedule the first available hearing date.
Four common application types can be e-Filed – two for landlords and two for tenants, which together account for 80% of all applications received at the LTB.
The two applications that tenants can file online are:
The two applications that landlords can file online are:
From the launch of e-File on July 13, 2015 to March 31, 2016, the LTB received 11,788 applications online.
23% of all L1, L2, T2 and T6 applications filed with the LTB during that time were filed using e-File.
69% of e-File applications were scheduled for a hearing date online: 75% of landlord applications and 26.5% of tenant applications.
19.2% (702) of e-File applications were filed outside of business hours.
Paper applications can still be mailed, faxed or dropped off at one of the eight LTB offices or personally delivered to more than 60 ServiceOntario locations across the province.
In April 2015, the Southwestern and Toronto South offices began accepting case-specific inquiries by email. LTB users dealing with these offices are given an email address to submit information or ask questions about their case.
By November, this service was being offered to applicants and respondents of all eight LTB offices. Each office receives between 10 and 40 inquiries per week. Parties use email to request a summons, provide unavailable dates for adjourned matters, make submissions, and ask questions about the application and hearing process.
For general inquiries about the LTB process or about a tenant or landlord's rights and obligations, people are asked to visit the LTB website or call the call centre.
The LTB developed a French-English lexicon based on the Residential Tenancies Act. The lexicon is a quick reference for bilingual staff and members so that they are confident they are always using the right terminology.
In 2015-16, the LTB received 80,214 applications. This total includes landlord, tenant and co-op applications. This is an increase of 0.59% or 474 applications compared to 2014-2015.
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 61% were to terminate a tenancy because of non-payment of rent.
The number of unresolved applications at the LTB rose to 11,946, an increase over previous years. There are two major factors which contributed to this change:
When both parties involved in an application are interested in working together to resolve the issues in dispute, the LTB provides a mediator. In 2015-2016, approximately 34% 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 70% of the co-op applications that were contested were resolved by mediation during 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 2015-16, the LTB received 2,891 requests for review, which is 3.62% of total applications received. Of the review requests received, 1,754 were denied after a preliminary review. The other 1,137 were sent to hearing to determine whether there was a serious error.
| 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calls handled | 299,143 | 286,869 | 293,351 |
| Average time per call | 04:45 | 05:10 | 05:08 |
| Average wait time in the queue | 05:06 | 06:46 | 06:44 |
| 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applications Received* | 80,214 | 79,740 | 81,748 |
| Applications Resolved | 78,175 | 77,148 | 82,126 |
| Outstanding at end of fiscal year** | 11,946 | 10,286 | 8,497 |
* The 2015-16 totals include non-profit co-operative housing eviction applications.
** As one application can result in more than one resolution, the number of applications outstanding at the end of the fiscal year does not necessarily equal the number from the previous year plus receipts, less the number resolved.
| Resolution Type | 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abandoned1 | 2,673 | 2,668 | 2,609 |
| Resolved by Mediation2 | 11,541 | 11,926 | 13,054 |
| Resolved at Hearing3 | 48,533 | 48,107 | 51,845 |
| Resolved without Hearing4 | 4,397 | 4,402 | 4,851 |
| Review Denied | 729 | 675 | 596 |
| Withdrawn | 7,487 | 7,369 | 7,223 |
| Other5 | 2,413 | 2,001 | 1,948 |
| Total | 77,773 | 77,148 | 82,126 |
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 | 2015-16 | June 1, 2014 - March 31, 2015 |
|---|---|---|
| No Hearing1 | 91 | 22 |
| Case Management Hearing Only | 236 | 110 |
| Merit Hearing Only | 10 | 10 |
| Both Case Management Hearing and Merit Hearing | 65 | 16 |
| Total | 402 | 158 |
1 application withdrawn/discontinued; parties settled the issues on their own
| Head Office* | Central | East | North | South | South west | Toronto East | Toronto North | Toronto South | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 498 | 8,793 | 8,395 | 4,131 | 10,913 | 14,271 | 10,521 | 11,557 | 10,663 | 79,742 |
* When the system is unable to match the postal code to a region in an e-Filed application, it is assigned to
"Head Office".
| Central | East | North | South | South west | Toronto East | Toronto North | Toronto South | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 39 | 22 | 17 | 65 | 102 | 121 | 48 | 58 | 472 |
| Case Type | Application Description | 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Determine Whether the Act Applies | 67 (0.1%) | 55 (0.1%) | 69 (0.1%) |
| A2 | Sublet or Assignment | 234 (0.3%) | 263 (0.4%) | 241 (0.3%) |
| A3 | Combined Application (usually includes an L1) | 4,050 (5.7%) | 3,986 (5.6%) | 4,209 (5.7%) |
| A4 | Vary Rent Reduction Amount | 76 (0.1%) | 135 (0.2%) | 134 (0.2%) |
| L1 | Terminate & Evict for Non-Payment of Rent | 48,940 (68.4%) | 49,991 (70.0%) | 52,832 (71.2%) |
| L2 | Terminate for Other Reasons & Evict | 8,876 (12.4%) | 7,983 (11.2%) | 7,132 (9.9%) |
| L3 | Termination - Tenant Gave Notice or Agreed | 1,338 (1.9%) | 1,208 (1.7%) | 1,179 (1.6%) |
| L4 | Terminate the Tenancy - Failed Settlement | 5,559 (7.8%) | 5,632 (7.9%) | 5,955 (8.0%) |
| L5 | Rent Increase Above the Guideline | 433 (0.6%) | 548 (0.8%) | 438 (0.6%) |
| L6 | Review of Provincial Work Order | 15 (0.0%) | 8 (0.0%) | 3 (0.0%) |
| L7 | Transfer Tenant to Care Home | 6 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 4 (0.0%) |
| L8 | Tenant Changed Locks | 28 (0.0%) | 31 (0.0%) | 21 (0.0%) |
| L9 | Application to Collect Rent | 1,892 (2.6%) | 1,735 (2.4%) | 1,800 (2.4%) |
| Total | 71,514 | 71,575 | 74,197 |
| Case Type | Application Description | 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Determine Whether the Act Applies | 64 (0.8%) | 59 (0.7%) | 23 (0.3%) |
| A2 | Sublet or Assignment | 68 (0.8%) | 55 (0.7%) | 46 (0.6%) |
| A3 | Combined Application | 1,586 (19.3%) | 1,921 (24.1%) | 1,680 (22.3%) |
| A4 | Vary Rent Reduction Amount | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (0.0%) |
| T1 | Rent Rebate (e.g. illegal rent) | 663 (8.1%) | 716 (9.0%) | 663 (8.8%) |
| T2 | Tenant Rights | 3,922 (47.7%) | 3,441 (43.2%) | 3,441 (43.2%) |
| T3 | Rent Reduction | 67 (0.8%) | 69 (0.9%) | 51 (0.7%) |
| T4 | Failed Rent Increase Above Guideline | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (0.0%) | 4 (0.0%) |
| T5 | Bad Faith Notice of Termination | 174 (2.1%) | 170 (2.1%) | 156 (2.1%) |
| T6 | Maintenance | 1,661 (20.2%) | 1,516 (19.1%) | 1,318 (17.5%) |
| T7 | Suite Meters | 23 (0.3%) | 9 (0.0%) | 9 (0.0%) |
| Total | 8,228 | 7,957 | 7,551 |
| Case Type | Application Description | 2015-16 | June 1, 2014 - March 31, 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 252 (53.3%) | 132 (63.4%) |
| C1/2 | Combined C1 and C2 applications | 74 (15.6%) | 32 (15.3%) |
| C2 | Application to End the Occupancy of the Member Unit and Evict the Member | 73 (15.4%) | 23 (11%) |
| C3 | Application to End the Occupancy and Evict the Member - Based on the Member's Consent or Notice | 5 (1%) | 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 | 68 (14.4%) | 14 (7%) |
| Total | 472 | 208 |
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 | 69% | 23.3 |
| Decisions for LTB applications will be issued within 5 business days at the conclusion of the final hearing | 83% | 4.6 |
The Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) 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 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.
The SBT, the Rexdale Community Legal Clinic and the Disability Adjudication Unit of the Ministry of Community and Social Services are partnering to use video-conferencing for hearings.
SBT videoconference hearings began in earnest in fall 2015 with appellants from the Rexdale Community Legal Clinic and North Peel and Dufferin Community Legal Services. The Durham Community Legal Clinic joined in March 2016.
Video hearings have benefits for everyone involved. The SBT can use adjudicators from across the province, eliminating the cost and time for travel. The case presenting officer from the Disability Adjudication Unit at the Ministry of Community and Social Services also saves on commuting time. Appellants save travel time and attend their hearing in a safe and comfortable environment.
Ann Schweighofer, office manager at the Rexdale clinic, says some lawyers and their clients were worried about not being face-to-face, but the video hearings have been well-received. "The clients are very happy not to have to travel downtown and our staff are happy for the same reason," she says.
So far, video is being used for hearings which determine whether a person will receive Ontario Disability Support Program payments. The appellant connects from the legal clinic. The respondent, who is a representative of the Disability Adjudication Unit of MCSS, connects from their office, and the SBT adjudicator connects from one of the SJTO hearing sites. The participants use Adobe Connect (for video) and teleconference (for audio). The technology is easy to use and the picture and sound are clear.
Six SBT adjudicators have conducted more than150 hearings by video so far. SBT plans to expand videoconferencing in 2016-17.
As of January 1, 2016, the SBT began processing new appeals electronically.
When documents come in, case administrators scan the documents and assign a category to each one using Adobe Professional.
The SBT expects that the first hearings using electronic files will be held in September 2016. To prepare the file for a member, appeal resolution officers will create a single PDF for the file, with tabs for each category.
Electronic files save on printing, storage and courier costs and make it easy for staff and members to access the files anytime from anywhere.
The SBT introduced new rules of procedure, forms and practice directions on January 1, 2016.
The new forms standardize several requests that parties can make to the SBT. Because the forms ensure that the person making the request provides all the necessary information, the SBT is responding to these requests more quickly.
The new rules require earlier disclosure of preliminary issues, parties are therefore better prepared and self-represented appellants have more time to get legal help before the hearing.
In general, the new rules, forms and practice directions simplify and clarify procedures. These are some of the highlights:
Appellants must:
Respondents must:
Starting in August 2015, appeals of many Scarborough residents are being heard at the SJTO Toronto East office at 2275 Midland Ave. The location is primarily used for LTB hearings but SBT users are now also benefitting from the site.
Previously, Scarborough appeals were heard in Toronto. The new location is easy to reach by public transit and more convenient for people who live in Scarborough. Another advantage is that because the site is also used for LTB hearings, there is a security guard present to help direct people.
More than 240 SBT hearings were held at Midland Ave. between August 6, 2015 and March 31, 2016.
This is a hearing location only. No other SBT services are provided at the office.
In March 2015, the SBT invited some legal clinics, Ontario Works (OW) and Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) offices to start submitting inquiries and small documents by email as part of a pilot project. An evaluation of the pilot showed that participants liked knowing that:
Starting in February 2016, the pilot ended and all legal clinics, OW and ODSP offices were invited to email the SBT. As of March 31, there were 191 people from more than 25 offices and clinics using email to communicate with the SBT.
Offering another means of communication makes the tribunal more accessible. Participants can still submit documents by fax or mail.
The SBT continues to improve the Early Resolution Opportunity program (ERO). The ERO 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 ERO 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 a 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 1,508 ERO sessions (not including medical review appeals, below). The settlement rate was 34%, a slight improvement over last year's rate of 32%.
Program Expanded to Include Medical Review AppealsThis year, the SBT expanded the ERO to include appeals of medical reviews. Medical reviews are conducted by the Disability Adjudication Unit of the Ministry of Community and Social Services and are used to determine whether an ODSP recipient is still a person with a disability. If they are no longer a person with a disability, they are no longer eligible for income support and benefits.
The Medical Review Early Resolution Pilot began on November 1, 2015 and will continue for nine months. The pilot program established expedited timelines to receive submissions from the Disability Adjudication Unit, and includes a tailored early resolution opportunity process. Parties can choose to exit the program and have a regular hearing at any time.
Five months after the program began, the SBT is seeing signs of success. While hearings are usually scheduled to take place 7 months after an appeal is received, cases in the program are being resolved as early as 2-3 months after the appeal was received. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the 27 decisions appealed in the program have been overturned (meaning that the appellant is found to still have a disability).
The SBT received 11,318 appeals, a decrease of 2,707 from the previous year. More appeals were completed than received so the number of pending cases significantly decreased by more than 1,700. The average time to complete a case decreased from 318 days to 299 days. SBT continued to target the scheduling of hearings within 30 days of receiving the appeal.
The SBT had a significant turnover in members (adjudicators) this year. A full 30% of full-time members left the tribunal as a result of retirements, resignations and members moving to new opportunities before reaching their 10-year cap (In 2006, Ontario limited appointments to ten years). The appointment process is lengthy and new members need time to get up to speed before they can work at full capacity, meaning that there were fewer members available to hear cases.
| 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appeals Received | 11,318 | 14,025 | 14,768 |
| Completed | 13,038 | 14,606 | 14,225 |
| Pending at end of fiscal year | 9,597 | 11,317 | 11,898 |
| Case processing time (days) | 299 | 318 | 267 |
| Resolution Type | 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abandoned | 257 (2%) | 331 (2%) | 293 (2%) |
| Withdrawn* | 4,185 (32%) | 4,034 (28%) | 3,846 (27%) |
| Reconsideration denied | 253 (2%) | 283 (2%) | 262 (2%) |
| Resolved at hearing** | 8,087 (62%) | 9,629 (66%) | 9,289 (65%) |
| Other | 256 (2%) | 329 (2%) | 535 (4%) |
| Total | 13,038 | 14,606 | 14,225 |
* Withdrawn cases can include those closed due to a successful mediation session.
** Resolved at hearing includes decisions released following a reconsideration hearing.
| 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ODSP | 10,668 (94%) | 13,207 (94%) | 13,732 (93%) |
| OW | 650 (6%) | 818 (6%) | 1,036 (7%) |
| Total | 11,318 | 14,025 | 14,768 |
| ODSP | 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Refusal | 9,114 (85%) | 11,716 (89%) | 12,613 (92%) |
| Cancellation & Suspension | 914 (9%) | 828 (6%) | 353 (2%) |
| Amount & Reduction | 528 (5%) | 559 (4%) | 659 (5%) |
| Other | 112 (1%) | 104 (1%) | 107 (1%) |
| Total | 10,668 | 13,207 | 13,732 |
| OW | 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Refusal | 191 (29%) | 178 (22%) | 229 (22%) |
| Cancellation & Suspension | 175 (27%) | 293 (36%) | 393 (38%) |
| Amount & Reduction | 248 (38%) | 320 (39%) | 383 (37%) |
| Other | 36 (6%) | 27 (3%) | 31 (3%) |
| Total | 650 | 818 | 1,036 |
| ODSP | 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Granted | 4,208 (54%) | 5,090 (55%) | 4,789 (54%) |
| Denied | 2,152 (28%) | 2,533 (27%) | 2,436 (28%) |
| Denied in absentia* | 999 (13%) | 1,178 (13%) | 1,163 (13%) |
| Other** | 389 (5%) | 437 (5%) | 443 (5%) |
| Total | 7,748 | 9,238 | 8,831 |
| OW | 2015-16 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Granted | 70 (21%) | 69 (18%) | 57 (12%) |
| Denied | 140 (41%) | 119 (30%) | 186 (41%) |
| Denied in absentia* | 80 (24%) | 151 (39%) | 155 (34%) |
| Other** | 49 (14%) | 52 (13%) | 60 (13%) |
| Total | 339 | 391 | 458 |
* 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. | 7% | 33 (notice of hearing) 241 (hearing date) |
| Decisions will be issued within 30 calendar days after the completion of the hearing. | 58% | 33 |
The Executive Chair and the Alternate Executive 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 2021 |
| Beverly Anne Moore*, Alternate Executive Chair | September 2015 | September 2018 |
| Name | First Appointed | Term Ends |
|---|---|---|
| Donald Butler | December 2006 | December 2016 |
| Celia Denov | February 2007 | February 2017 |
| Patrick R. Doran* | May 2007 | May 2017 |
| Judy Finlay | January 2011 | January 2021 |
| Nathalie Fortier*, Vice-Chair | July 2013 | July 2018 |
| John Gates | October 2005 | October 2016 |
| Suzanne Gilbert*, Associate Chair | October 2006 | March 2017 |
| Gail Gonda | May 2007 | May 2017 |
| Andrea Himel | November 2010 | November 2020 |
| Heather Susan Hunter | May 2008 | May 2018 |
| Lorna King | April 2006 | April 2016 |
| Alina (Alice) Lazor | May 2008 | May 2018 |
| Robert Lefebvre* | February 2013 | February 2019 |
| Richard Linley | December 2006 | December 2016 |
| Eva Nichols* | February 2013 | August 2016 |
| T. Michele O'Connor | November 2010 | November 2020 |
| Frances Sanderson | December 2006 | December 2016 |
| Ruth Ann Schedlich | June 2002 | October 2016 |
| Jayashree (Jay) Sengupta* | July 2014 | September 2018 |
| John (Johannes) F. Spekkens | November 2010 | November 2020 |
| Wendell E. White | March 1999 | September 2016 |
| Mary Wong | May 2007 | May 2017 |
| Name | First Appointed | Term Ends |
|---|---|---|
| Saleem M. Akhtar | September 2009 | September 2019 |
| Lisa Barazzutti | October 2010 | October 2017 |
| George Berrigan | February 2007 | February 2017 |
| Roderick Flynn | June 2007 | June 2017 |
| Keith Forde | October 2010 | October 2017 |
| Gemma Harmison | September 2006 | September 2016 |
| Jacqueline Harper | October 2010 | October 2017 |
| Jo-Anne Hughes | October 2008 | October 2018 |
| Christie Jefferson | June 2010 | June 2020 |
| Wendy King | October 2010 | October 2017 |
| Kirsten Kurzuk | December 2008 | December 2018 |
| Susan Lee | April 2011 | April 2016 |
| Janet Maceachen | September 2009 | September 2019 |
| Jay Meunier | September 2009 | September 2019 |
| Virginia Morra | June 2007 | June 2017 |
| Stanley Newman | June 2005 | May 2016 |
| John R. Radmore | February 2004 | February 2017 |
| Veda Rangan | September 2009 | September 2019 |
| Kabir Ravindra | June 2007 | June 2017 |
| Linda Spears | June 2007 | June 2016 |
| Dawn Sullivan | February 2007 | February 2017 |
| Maria Tassou, Acting Associate Chair | June 2007 | December 2017 |
| Leni Untinen | February 2007 | February 2017 |
| Dawn Wickett | June 2007 | June 2017 |
| Name | First Appointed | Term Ends |
|---|---|---|
| Sarah Atkinson | January 2015 | January 2017 |
| Kim Bernardt | January 2015 | January 2017 |
| Bruce Best, Vice-Chair | September 2015 | September 2017 |
| Kenneth Bhattacharjee, Vice-Chair | September 2008 | September 2018 |
| Catherine Bickley | January 2011 | January 2021 |
| Josée Bouchard, Vice-Chair | January 2016 | January 2018 |
| Suzanne Bouclin | March 2016 | March 2018 |
| Keith Brennenstuhl*, Vice-Chair | September 2007 | September 2017 |
| Ruth Carey* | August 2012 | December 2016 |
| Kevin Gordon Cleghorn | January 2011 | January 2021 |
| Brian L. 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 2021 |
| Brian Eyolfson, Vice-Chair | August 2007 | August 2017 |
| Michelle Flaherty* | October 2008 | June 2018 |
| Nathalie Fortier* | July 2014 | July 2018 |
| Aida Gatfield | January 2013 | January 2018 |
| Suzanne Gilbert* | December 2012 | March 2017 |
| Yola Grant, Associate Chair | April 2014 | April 2016 |
| Maurice A. 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 Lisa Hewat | September 2008 | September 2018 |
| Judith Anne Hinchman | August 2008 | August 2018 |
| Julie Jai | January 2015 | January 2017 |
| Colin Johnston | January 2015 | January 2017 |
| Judith Anne Keene | November 2008 | August 2017 |
| Dawn J. Kershaw*, Vice-Chair | October 2012 | May 2018 |
| Jennifer Khurana*, Vice-Chair | September 2015 | December 2017 |
| Robert Lefebvre* | February 2014 | February 2019 |
| Michael Lerner | January 2011 | January 2021 |
| Laurie Letheren, Vice-Chair | February 2015 | February 2017 |
| Kathleen Martin | June 2006 | September 2017 |
| Yasmeena Mohamed | January 2011 | January 2021 |
| David Muir, Vice-Chair | August 2008 | August 2018 |
| Eva Nichols* | February 2013 | August 2016 |
| Naomi Campbell 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 2021 |
| Janice Sandomirsky | August 2008 | August 2018 |
| Jennifer A. Scott, Vice-Chair | July 2006 | September 2017 |
| Jayashree (Jay) Sengupta*, Vice-Chair | September 2008 | September 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 Berkovits | June 2005 | July 2016 |
| David Black | August 2015 | August 2017 |
| Keith Brennenstuhl* | December 2012 | September 2017 |
| Aleksandar (Alex) Brkic | March 2015 | March 2017 |
| Vicenzina (Enza) Buffa* | May 2004 | May 2016 |
| Kim E. Bugby, Associate Chair | September 2004 | March 2018 |
| William Burke* | October 2005 | October 2016 |
| Ruth Carey*, Vice-Chair | December 2006 | August 2017 |
| Sylvie Rose Marie Charron*, Vice-Chair | October 2012 | October 2017 |
| Vincent Ching | April 2006 | April 2016 |
| Harry Cho | October 2012 | October 2016 |
| Esi Codjoe | January 2015 | January 2017 |
| Brian A. Cormier | April 2006 | May 2016 |
| Emily Crocco | January 2015 | January 2017 |
| Cristina De Leon-Culp | September 2015 | September 2017 |
| Lisa Del Vecchio | January 2015 | January 2017 |
| Thomas F. Fagan* | June 2013 | June 2018 |
| Nancy Fahlgren | June 1998 | June 2016 |
| Petar Guzina | November 2009 | November 2019 |
| Sean Henry | August 2015 | August 2017 |
| Brenna Homeniuk | December 2006 | December 2016 |
| Louise Horton | June 2009 | June 2019 |
| Greg Joy | June 2005 | June 2016 |
| Anna Jurak* | August 2012 | June 2016 |
| Teddy Kwan | November 2014 | November 2016 |
| Renee Lang | January 2015 | January 2017 |
| Claudette Leslie | April 2006 | April 2016 |
| Solange Losier | September 2015 | September 2017 |
| Kevin Lundy | October 2012 | October 2016 |
| Sandra Macchione* | February 2011 | February 2021 |
| 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 2021 |
| 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 Randhawa | 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 | January 2007 | July 2020 |
| Lisa M. Stevens | November 2009 | November 2019 |
| Mariam Elizabeth Usprich, Vice-Chair | March 2006 | August 2017 |
| Jonelle Van Delft*, Vice-Chair | November 2004 | June 2017 |
| Karen Wallace, Vice-Chair | December 2006 | February 2019 |
| Sylvia Nancy Watson | June 2009 | June 2019 |
| Karol Wronecki | January 2007 | January 2017 |
| Name | First Appointed | Term Ends |
|---|---|---|
| Ross Thomas Caradonna | May 2008 | May 2018 |
| Maureen Doyle* | August 2013 | February 2021 |
| Suzanne Gilbert*, Vice-Chair | May 2011 | March 2017 |
| Eva Nichols* | January 2005 | August 2016 |
| Jayashree (Jay) Sengupta* | August 2012 | September 2018 |
| Name | First Appointed | Term Ends |
|---|---|---|
| Maureen Doyle* | August 2013 | February 2021 |
| Michelle Flaherty* | August 2013 | June 2018 |
| Nathalie Fortier* | July 2014 | July 2018 |
| Suzanne Gilbert*, Vice-Chair | May 2011 | March 2017 |
| Name | First Appointed | Term Ends |
|---|---|---|
| Pamela Ahlfeld, Vice-Chair | October 2015 | October 2017 |
| Elizabeth Beckett* | August 2012 | April 2017 |
| Terry Brouillet | June 2013 | June 2018 |
| Brian Brown | April 2004 | May 2016 |
| Vicenzina (Enza) Buffa* | July 2015 | July 2017 |
| Jean Buie | October 2013 | October 2018 |
| William Burke* | July 2015 | July 2017 |
| Sylvie Rose Marie Charron, Vice-Chair* | December 2009 | October 2017 |
| Lisa Dicesare | June 2015 | June 2017 |
| Patrick R. Doran* | June 1998 | May 2017 |
| Thomas F. Fagan* | June 2013 | June 2018 |
| Nancy Ferguson | August 2015 | August 2017 |
| Nathan Ferguson | June 2006 | June 2017 |
| Richard Ferris | July 2015 | July 2017 |
| Lisa Freedman | August 2013 | August 2018 |
| Romona Gananathan | September 2013 | September 2018 |
| Kelly Gaon | August 2008 | June 2018 |
| Cheryl Henshaw | November 2014 | November 2016 |
| Audrey Hummelen, Vice-Chair | June 2007 | October 2017 |
| Solape Ilori | October 2015 | October 2017 |
| Kanji Jain | October 2015 | October 2017 |
| Anna Jurak* | May 2004 | June 2016 |
| Dawn J. Kershaw* | June 2006 | June 2016 |
| Jennifer Khurana* | July 2013 | July 2018 |
| Cyndi Kunkel | October 2015 | October 2017 |
| Georges Larivière | June 2015 | June 2017 |
| Sandra Macchione* | November 2006 | November 2016 |
| Janice MacGuigan | May 2008 | May 2018 |
| Sherry MacIsaac | May 2013 | May 2018 |
| Mark Mascarenhas | October 2015 | October 2017 |
| Allan Matte | February 2014 | February 2019 |
| Carol Anne McDermott* | June 2007 | June 2017 |
| Beverly Anne Moore, Associate Chair | October 2006 | September 2018 |
| Robert Murray*, Vice-Chair | May 2004 | December 2016 |
| William Murray | June 2008 | November 2017 |
| Gerald Naud* | March 2015 | October 2016 |
| Josephine Racioppo | September 2013 | June 2017 |
| Margaret Reynolds | April 2006 | April 2016 |
| Antonio Riccio | October 2005 | November 2016 |
| Jana Rozehnal* | August 2015 | August 2017 |
| Richard Simpson | October 2005 | October 2016 |
| Jonelle Van Delft*, Vice-Chair | February 2015 | June 2017 |
| Rosemary Walden-Stephan* | February 2001 | July 2016 |