New changes to HRTO Rules of Procedure & Practice Directions – Les nouveaux changements des règles de procédure et directives de pratique The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) announced updates to its Rules of Procedure, Practice Directions, Forms and operational processes coming into effect as of August 17, 2026. Please see our home page or Human Rights Law Updates section for details. --- Le Tribunal des droits de la personne de l’Ontario (TDPO) a annoncé des mises à jour à ses Règles de procédure, ses directives de pratique, ses formulaires et ses processus opérationnels. Les mises à jour entrent en vigueur le 17 août 2026. Pour plus d'informations, veuillez consulter notre page d'accueil ou notre section « Mises à jour de la loi ».

HRLSC Logo Home
Accessibility
Popular Topics:
[contact-form-7 id="1123" title="RFP Form"]

News about disability-rights

Interim Decision – Race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and sex/Services, goods and facilities

A recent HRTO interim decision has confirmed that a regulatory complaint does not prevent a human rights application from moving forward.

The Human Rights Legal Support Centre (HRLSC) represented the applicant in Scott v. VP Protection Inc., 2026 HRTO 886, who alleged racial and gender discrimination by security guards at a Brampton shopping mall. After the incident, the applicant brought a complaint to the Private Security & Investigative Services Branch (PSISB) in 2018, which ended after facilitation with a mediator.

The applicant then filed a human rights application in 2019 with the HRTO. The respondents requested an early dismissal, under section 45.1 of the Code; claiming that the PSISB process had already addressed the matter.

The HRTO rejected the argument that the PSISB had duplicated the role of a Tribunal hearing, finding that the PSISB process was for a “distinctly different purpose.” The PSISB facilitation was non-adjudicative, meaning it could not make making rulings on the evidence or provide a binding decision, including providing human rights remedies. As a result, the HRTO ruled it had not “appropriately dealt with” the substance of the application, and the HRTO application could proceed.

For more information about subjects discussed in this case, please see our Guide on Early Dismissal of an Application as well as our Guide on Choosing where to file human rights claims or complaints.

HRTO Decision Stands after Leave to Appeal Refused: Denial of Guide Dog Benefit to HRLSC Client was Discriminatory

A leave to appeal has been denied by Ontario’s Court of Appeal, upholding a decision in the case of a Guide Dog Benefit requirement that was found to be discriminatory by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The HRLSC represented Destiny Robinson-Cooke before the HRTO after the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) found she was ineligible for the Guide Dog Benefit, an additional benefit available to ODSP recipients who require the assistance of a service dog due to their disabilities.

Eligibility for the Guide Dog Benefit was dependent on having a dog that was trained by a facility accredited by ADI Dogs International. The applicant was not able to obtain a dog from such a facility that would meet her particular disability-related needs.

The HRLSC successfully argued before the HRTO that this requirement was discriminatory based on disability. This conclusion was upheld by the Divisional Court on judicial review.

See here for more on the HRTO Decision and the decision of the Divisional Court. 

The Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services [MCCSS], the Ministry responsible for administering ODSP, filed for leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal. On February 28, 2025, the Court of Appeal ruled that leave to appeal was refused. As a result of this refusal, the decisions of the HRTO and Divisional Court stand and will not be subject to any further challenges from the MCCSS.   

In Robinson-Cooke v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2023 HRTO 1133, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) upheld the application of an HRLSC client, an ODSP recipient who had a number of physical and mental disabilities.

The applicant required the support of a service dog to be able to live independently, but she was denied an additional benefit provided by ODSP intended to cover the costs of feeding and maintaining a service dog [the Guide Dog Benefit] because her dog was not trained by a facility accredited by Assistance Dogs International [ADI]. The HRTO found this was discriminatory as she could not meet this requirement due to the specific nature of her disability-related needs, for which she could not obtain a dog with ADI certification. See here for more on the HRTO’s decision. 

The Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services [MCCS] filed an application for judicial review of the HRTO decision. The HRLSC represented the applicant before the Divisional Court on the judicial review. 

The Divisional Court dismissed the judicial review: Ontario (Minister of Children, Community and Social Services) v. Robinson-Cooke, 2024 ONSC 3556. The Court found that HRTO had applied the correct legal tests, properly assessed the evidence and came to a conclusion on the issue of discrimination that was reasonable in the circumstances. The Court also found that the remedies ordered by the HRTO, which required MCSS to conduct a review into developing a more inclusive method of determining eligibility for the Guide Dog Benefit, were reasonable and well within the scope of the HRTO’s broad remedial jurisdiction.

The MCCS has filed an application for leave to appeal of the Divisional Court’s decision. If leave is granted, an appeal hearing will be held before the Court of Appeal.

Decision involving HRLSC client results in improved polices and procedures for persons with diabetes in police custody

In Powell v. Ontario (Solicitor General), 2023 HRTO 345, the HRLSC represented an applicant with Type 1 diabetes who alleged she had experienced discrimination during an interaction with police.

The HRTO Decision

On the evening of August 18, 2018, the applicant was taken into police custody as a result of a physical altercation with her then spouse, William Wright. Wright advised the police just before the applicant was taken into custody that she had diabetes. In addition, Wright brought the applicant’s insulin medication and glucose testing instruments to the police station a short time later, when he attended to provide a witness statement to police. Despite this, during her time in custody, the police made no inquiries of the applicant about her diabetes nor did the police offer her the use of her testing equipment or medication.

The HRTO found that the police had sufficient knowledge of the applicant’s disability that it had a duty to inquire as to whether the applicant needed access to her glucose monitor and insulin, stating that the applicant should have immediately been provided with an opportunity to check her blood sugar levels once the glucose monitor was provided by Wright. The failure to make any effort to determine the applicant’s medical status during her detention was found to be a breach of the respondent’s procedural duty to accommodate the applicant’s disability.

The Report:

To ensure future compliance with the Code, the HRTO ordered that the respondent must retain an external consultant to conduct a review of its policies, procedures and protocols related to the screening of individuals entering into custody, with particular focus on the treatment of persons with diabetes. The HRTO also awarded the applicant $2,000 in general damages.

Quotes from Report:

In February 2024, the external consultant, Gerry McNeilly, released his report entitled Medical Accommodations for Persons with Diabetes Arrested and Held in Custody. The key findings and recommendations from McNeilly’s report were:

  • “Considering that diabetes is not a newly discovered medical condition and is, in fact, becoming more prevalent, officers should be aware of it, aware that individuals arrested and in custody may have diabetes and know the required approaches in dealing with treatment or the administering of medication.“
  • “It must also be acknowledged that the OPP is responsible for policing large and small communities across Ontario, including northern and very remote communities and communities that may have large Indigenous populations, where the prevalence of diabetes maybe more profound. In my opinion, it is therefore more crucial that clear and details policies be created, and proper training be provided for officers in these detachment areas.“
  • “I also found there is a need to convey to officers, through policies and training, that not all medical issues are easily visible. This means officers must be highly vigilant and ask every arrested person about their medical issues, and not act or rely on their own perceptions, observations or assumptions of the person being arrested. Some individuals with diabetes may wear identifying medical bracelets or carry other identification that indicate their medical situations. However, not everyone does, so it is absolutely necessary that officers err on the side of caution by being specific in questioning about medical conditions.“
  • “A new policy on custody and prisoner care and control should include a duty to inquire about medical information for all arresting and custodial officers. This duty to inquire will go a long way to ensure the appropriate information is obtained and documented.“
  • “Develop policies (if possible) that address the problems that could occur if officers rely solely on their own assumptions or observations to draw conclusions about medical conditions of people being detained. Ensure that policies or direction include asking the individual about their medical condition.“