HRTO success rate, timelines and damages: the numbers

Almost no case gets a hearing

Of 1,997 final decisions the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued in the first nine months of 2025, 1,934 were dismissals without a hearing. These are final decisions — the ruling that ends a matter, not interim rulings along the way. So each of the 1,997 is one case concluding, and "cases" is the right word. It is not a count of people: one person can bring several applications, and matters that settle produce no decision at all — so the number of individuals involved is higher than 1,997, and nobody publishes it. These are decisions, not people — one applicant's case can generate several, and the Tribunal does not publish a matter count, so the number of individuals behind these figures is unknown and is certainly lower than 1,997. Roughly a third of those were for supposed lack of jurisdiction; most of the rest were abandonments. Eighty-four percent of claimants were self-represented.

Unit: final decisions, province-wide, all respondents. Nine months, not twelve — that is the window in the Tribunal's own published figures as analysed by Tribunal Watch Ontario, not a sample we selected. We do not annualise it. The 96.8% share does not depend on the window length. Source and detail.

Answers got slower. Endings got faster.

These two numbers describe the same system. Matters that survive take longer every year. Matters that die, die faster — because they now end at screening and abandonment rather than at hearings. Delay did not slow everything down equally. It moved the endings earlier and the answers later.

Unit: matters, Thunder Bay corpus (57 decisions, 48 matters). Comparators: Hanchuck 4.1 years to a paper gate; DeBungie 5.5 years to dismissal. ◇ This is currently a Thunder Bay pattern — Ontario corrections shows a 1.0-year median with a long tail instead, so it is not yet generalisable.

Representation predicts how your case ends — across three institutions

This is the strongest finding in the project, because it replicates. Three unrelated Ontario institutions, one identical pipeline, matter-level. As the share of matters with counsel rises, the share dying at a paper gate falls.

Bars show the abandonment rate — the share of matters ending because someone stopped answering. Counsel signal is a text-presence proxy.

Represented matters get dismissed on the merits of a preliminary test. Unrepresented matters stop answering. That distinction is the whole finding, and it is actionable in a way most access-to-justice research is not: the gate that kills most claims is not a legal test. It is a deadline nobody explained.

Free representation: Human Rights Legal Support Centre, 1-866-625-5179.

At one service, the majority of complaints came from inside

Two institutions, two shapes. Thunder Bay's record is the institution's own people — eleven serving or former members plus the chair of its own oversight board. Ontario corrections splits the same way, and the two dockets die differently: staff matters die on procedure and case-splitting; inmate matters die on jurisdiction and abandonment. Any comparison that does not hold this split constant is measuring two different things.

Ontario corrections is a provincial ministry, not a service — it never appears on a per-capita police axis, and facility names like "Toronto East" are locations, not municipal bodies. Side by side.

Civilians allege race. Employees allege disability and reprisal.

Two different injuries from one institution. The public alleges race; the institution's own staff allege disability and reprisal. Merging them produces a number that describes neither. Reprisal appears in 73% of employee applications at Thunder Bay and ties for the top ground at Durham. It is a free-standing wrong: it survives even if the underlying discrimination claim fails, because the harm is the punishment, not the original conduct. It is also the most under-used provision in the Code.

Unit: applications, Thunder Bay corpus, text-derived. How to plead it.

Human rights is one of five routes — and the narrowest at appeal

Ontario's racial-profiling doctrine is built almost entirely by accused people seeking to exclude evidence. Police boards appear in the civil list constantly. In fourteen years, exactly two Ontario police human-rights cases reached the Court of Appeal.

Retrieved from the A2AJ open Canadian legal corpus (ONCA dataset, 24,036 decisions). The full forum analysis.

What the record produced across three institutions

Six payment orders across forty-two years at Ontario corrections. Three belong to a single case, McKinnon — thirteen years of continuous compliance supervision of a provincial ministry, the closest thing Ontario has to a consent-decree regime. It has been cited by five later decisions outside its own file, most recently in 2016.

Ontario corrections 484 decisions / 344 matters, 1984–2026 — a provincial ministry, not a police service, and never placed on a police per-capita axis. Thunder Bay Police 57 decisions / 48 matters and Durham Regional Police 60 decisions / 40 matters, 2009–2026. Same pipeline, matter level.

Using these

Every chart on this page may be reproduced with attribution to onionskin.ca. If you are a journalist, clinic or researcher and want the underlying data, it is open — ask. If you think a number here is wrong, tell us and it gets fixed in place and dated.

Published in good faith from public records as fair comment on matters of public interest. Information, not legal advice.