Written by Barry Dennison   

Just as Hillary Clinton was announcing her run for President last week, Premier Kathleen Wynne and the Government of Ontario digitized Small Claims courts, so lawyers and citizens can make an application, file records and pay fees online.

Great news ... except all the other tribunals in the province (created to take the pressure off Small Claims court) are experiencing a huge digital deficit that tromps on people's privacy and gives them long line ups in which to stand.

Indeed, in this article we look at two Ontario government tribunals with two approaches to modernizing with technology, one tribunal that does not allow emails to be used as evidence (or set rules for when they are accepted). The other is responsible for the breach of privacy of thousands of Ontarians.

While it's understandable that it takes time to streamline technology services in all government services, this situation is fraught with confusion and frustration as well as rules that don't come near to the notion of 'natural justice'. What's fair?

That's what this story is about - institutions clinging to old ways of doing things, versus a provincial government ensuring sectors (of the civil service) are all operating under the same rules of procedure and ability.

It's a story of our democratic institutions falling short and in need of help from the people, their Premier and her Ministers.

Currently every Tenant to launch an Application at the Landlord Tenant Housing Tribunal (LTHT), the Registrar will mail a Tenant's complaint to the Landlord because they don't trust the public to serve the Landlord's properly. All at the cost of thousands of taxpayer dollars in stamps, plus time for 5-day snail mail service.

Whereas the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal receives Applications by email, cc'd to the Respondent. Served complete with pictures and other required documents all in click and for free. As well as verification of 'service' to all parties - "Disclosure" in full.

At the Housing Tribunal, that simple email with attachments is not recognized as a legitimate means of communication. Instead, parties continue to accuse each other of not properly serving each other in the snail mail system.

Today, at the Housing Tribunal where it's reportedly 'set-up for the Tenant to represent themselves', yet complaints are reportedly abandoned by Tenants who find themselves faced with the Registration fee, $40, $60+ on making 3 copies for pictures (for the evidence in proceeding).

Copies (3x's) = 15 cents a page for printing all documentation at our beloved Toronto Public Library. 5 cents copying x's 3 = more $$$ that makes the Tribunal cost prohibitive for those on disability, old age pensions or any other low wage earner or one with a family could afford.

While the Housing Tribunal features a 'no cost' form to have a subpoena/summons issued for the notes of a City of Toronto Property Standards Officer's, it requires having the officer attend the hearing to read their notes. What a waste of City of Toronto resources! Alternatively, file a 'Freedom of Information' request for $5, get the notes, then decide if an officer need attend.

Legal Aid Ontario's 'Community Legal Clinics' across Toronto claim budgets are cut to a point that they no longer fund any Tenant Application cases, except those 'in the public interest' (and this very few). Those faced with eviction are given minimal help if a clinic lawyer is available.

Toronto East Legal Clinic, executive director, Stewart Cruikshank recently told his client, "There is an extreme bias in favour of Landlords ..." and that no Tenant should appear before the Housing Tribunal. Mediate, quick.

Never mind your rights under the Housing Act or Charter, just mediate. Never mind that a Landlord might be retaliating against a Tenant for bringing conditions he neglected for years to the attention of City Inspectors.

Mr. Cruikshank is correct. The system is set up for landlords, against tenants.

When Landlord's apply to the Housing Tribunal, service time is 5 calendar days and a hearing is scheduled. Likely, non-payment of rent is the main issue.

When a Tenant applies under the Act, a date in 2 weeks is set for a "Case Management" hearing, where a mediator is provided to look for areas the parties could settle their differences. If not possible, set hearings are 3 months in advance.

At this hearing, an Order is issued saying that all Tenant evidence is to be into the Tribunal in 2 weeks hence, Landlord evidence 2 weeks after that. Yet the hearing is not for 3 months - an inordinate amount of time for the Landlord to think up some great answers.

"Depends on the Member." said one Clerk at the Housing Tribunal (Toronto South office) on the question, "Are text and emails accepted as evidence."

This effectively strips Tenants using the primary source of how people communicate in today's society, both texts and emails are recognized in criminal, family and all other civil courts in Ontario and across Canada.

This is not equal access or treatment before the law.

Where's the "Case Management" hearing for Landlord applications?

Notwithstanding, the Housing Tribunal gets 10 out of 10 when it comes to removing the names of litigants in their archives of Tribunal decisions. Using the party's "initials" only.

The terms "anonymization" or "anonymity" are used to describe situations where a party or witness is not identified in a written decision.

This is desperately needed at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (HRTO) where people's privacy rights are getting trampled on by the lack of consistency within Ontario's Social Justice tribunals.

Perhaps an over-sight by senior management within the Social Justice realm in Ontario? Or is 'managing the poor' the goal and no one actually really cares?

Just asking, "What good is it for anyone when the government commissions a leading lawyer in the human rights field to analyze the system, if the government doesn't read and implement his recommendations?

What real worth does the Government of Ontario place on legal clinics they finance, as ARCH (who research disability issues) if the lawyer's recommendations go unnoticed for almost a year?

In a May 2014 presentation to the Ontario Bar Association (OBA), Laurie Letheren, a lawyer with ARCH Disability Law Centre was primarily concerned over, "the impact the disclosure of names and disability would have on future employment prospects for people." at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.

Ms. Letheren's message to the OBA was, "All proceedings before the Tribunal are private and the Tribunal should ensure that decisions are anonymized before they are forwarded for publication."

The legal clinic financed by the Government of Ontario, reported, "Currently, there are people who have been discriminated against but feel they can not seek a lawful remedy at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal." solely because their privacy is being publicized indiscriminately.

The Registrar at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (OHRT) believe that as a 'condition' to apply for help by the Tribunal, the Applicant is giving their permission for the Tribunal to make "some" material public. The public is required only to check a box on the application, a traditional way to give the OHRT tacit permission to later publish everything at CanLii.

However, CanLii once had settings that didn't make the information accessible by google search engine, until the site was hacked by a company claiming to be in Eastern Europe, where neither Canadian police nor courts have jurisdiction to stop these companies from demanding money from people begging to have names removed.

This so-called company that eludes police charges isn't referenced by the Commission and therefore isn't properly informing litigants about the full implication of their information being released to the public when entering their domain.

This March 2014 article in the Financial Post was well researched and verifies my observations, saying,

"Individuals mentioned in criminal cases, refugee appeals, landlord-tenant disputes and more could also be affected and the Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLii), the website where the decisions were originally posted ... " because it was hacked and now people's lives are now easily accessed by a simple search Google. (1.)

Globe24h. has downloaded all court archives and charging a fee to people asking for their names be taken down off the net.

In 2011, the McGuinty Ontario government commissioned Toronto lawyer Andrew Pinto to conduct a review of the 2008 changes made to the system. Released on November 8, 2012, the Pinto report endorsed the changes made by the government to the human rights system, but also called for further reforms.

In his report, Mr. Pinto has called for anonymized data to be published concerning the outcomes of mediation before the Tribunal "... help to achieve settlements." (2.)

AT the OHRT, "Interim" Orders live on in the system even after the parties settle. These Orders are needlessly public as the parties have said the matter is done, but still this private information of people's backgrounds or disabilities remain online.

Yet another clinic lawyer financed by the Ontario Government is Dania Majid for the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario, who writes, "The Landlord and Tenant Board process has issues. There is a variation in the quality of adjudication and outcomes ... ACTO has undertaken numerous reviews and appeals where the decision may have implications for other tenants."

If you've read this article and want to do something?

Please post (in the comments below) a copy of your written response to the Attorney General of Ontario, Ontario Ombudsman and Premier, asking for the removal of names in decisions written at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.

Ask for a policy amendment for the Canadian online journal, CanLii, to immediately begin the process of anonymizing cases in their online archive for all in-coming data.

Ask the Premier/Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to instruct her Ministry to immediately 'digitize' the Housing Tribunal, to streamline communication between Applicants, the Registrar and Respondent, via email and other technologies that make better communication possible. |

Ask to allow digital pictures as evidence because they are every bit as true as a hard copy at the Housing Tribunal. Ask if we can pay Registrar fees over the internet and not have to stand in a huge line-up or wait on the phone for 30 minutes to talk to a clerk? Ask if our texts and emails will be accepted as evidence.

Ask the Ombudsman of Ontario and the Auditor General to pay closer attention to these needed updates that will vastly improve services for Ontarians!

Help us please Premier Wynn! Citizens are powerless in the face of an old fashioned way for a tribunal to administer the law, and bureaucrats and Ministers who really aren't getting to the heart of problems.

We ask for your consideration.
　
~


1.) Financial Post, March 2014 http://business.financialpost.com/2014/03/29/how-cyber-shame-scams-are-playing-on-our-privacy-fears-and-scaling-up/?__lsa=d188-2b3c


(2.) Labour blog
http://www.labourblawg.ca/human-rights/pinto-report-review-of-human-rights-in-ontario/
　
===

Attorney General Contact information:
Ministry of the Attorney General
11th Floor
720 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Premier Wynn: https://correspondence.premier.gov.on.ca/en/feedback/default.aspx