A couple months back, I attended the Law Society of Ontario’s event on accommodations at
administrative tribunals, as part of the LSO’s AccessAbility week. Each presenter offered insight
on the accommodation process in Ontario’s tribunals and presented a different perspective on the
tribunal system, but there was an apparent consensus on at least one issue: that receiving
accommodations can be inconsistent from tribunal to tribunal, and that no tribunal generally
achieves the quality of accommodation of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. This is
problematic because it means that litigants with disabilities might be at risk of not receiving their
accommodations at one of Ontario’s highest-traffic tribunals: the Landlord and Tenant Board.
This issue is particular significant to us at Jasmine Daya & Co because many of our clients have
temporary or permanent disabilities. It is overwhelmingly important that our clients are able to
get the full accommodations that are required by law when they are pursuing a claim.
In fact, the standard that public service providers such as Ontario’s tribunals must meet when it
comes to their duty to accommodate people with disabilities is fairly high; the Ontario Human
Rights Code requires that people with disabilities be accommodated to the point of “under
hardship”. 1 The undue hardship cannot be minor or trivial. 2 Further, the burden to prove undue
hardship lies on the service provider – in other words, when you go before one of Ontario’s
administrative tribunals such as the Landlord and Tenant Board and ask for an accommodation,
they must provide that accommodation or demonstrate a compelling reason why they cannot do
Jasmine Daya & Co. has expanded our services to include Landlord and Tenant
Services. We can advocate on your behalf not only to get the relief you seek before the Landlord
and Tenant Board, but to help assure you receive the accommodations you are entitled to under
law throughout the process. If you have any questions, call our team at 416-967-9100 or contact
us online to schedule an appointment.
3 British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights)