On naming — a position we have revised
Our earlier line was that adjudicators should be reported only in aggregate and never named. That was too blunt, and the objection to it is strong: if a person is appointed without an open competition, holds office at the pleasure of the government that appointed them, and decides whether someone's claim of discrimination is heard at all, then their qualifications and their decision-making are matters of legitimate public interest. Anonymity in that situation does not protect independence. It protects opacity.
So the line has moved. What we will and will not do:
- We will name who decided what. Every decision is published over a signature. Reporting that a named Vice-Chair decided a named case is reporting the public record, not exposing anyone.
- We will publish appointment provenance and stated qualifications where they are on the public record — appointment date, term, prior professional background, and the process used.
- We will publish concentration and disposition patterns per adjudicator, in neutral units, once the data exists to do it properly.
- We will not publish rankings, grades, "toughest adjudicator" lists, or inferences about motive. Not out of deference — because a scoreboard invites the reader to attribute a systemic pattern to a personality, and every number on this site says the pattern is systemic.
- We will apply the same standard we apply to police officers: named where a public record names them, described by what they did, never characterised beyond what the document supports.
How Ontario tribunal adjudicators are appointed
Adjudicators of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Attorney General and Cabinet. They serve fixed terms. Reappointment is discretionary. There is no independent body between the government and the appointment, and none between the government and a decision not to reappoint.
That last point is the whole issue. A judge cannot be removed for deciding cases in a way a government dislikes. A tribunal adjudicator can simply not be reappointed, and no reason need be given.
What happened after 2018
Following the 2018 provincial election, the government declined to reappoint many experienced adjudicators and left their positions vacant. Noel Semple of the University of Windsor Faculty of Law, who advised on reform legislation, described the effect: "There were a whole lot of vacancies… More importantly, all the most experienced people who provided the leadership and institutional memory had been dismissed." He has also said the province followed up by appointing people connected to the governing party.
Brian Cook, coordinator of Tribunal Watch Ontario — a non-partisan organisation whose members include former adjudicators — put the principle at stake plainly: "Just like judicial independence is of paramount importance in our society, there should be similar protections for people appointed to adjudicative tribunals. Currently, the process is open to political abuse."
Then, in 2019, twelve tribunals including the HRTO were consolidated under a single umbrella, Tribunals Ontario. The backlog consequences are set out on the province-wide page.
The reform that has not passed: Bill 179
The Fewer Backlogs and Less Partisan Tribunals Act would create an independent Adjudicative Tribunals Justice Council to monitor tribunal appointments, operations and severance, with approval, reporting and investigative powers. Its chair would be an Officer of the Legislative Assembly selected by all official parties; five of ten members would be selected by independent institutions including the Law Society of Ontario. Where the Council recommended an appointment, Cabinet would have 60 days to confirm or explain a rejection.
Critically, it would also give an adjudicator a right to review by the Council where the government declines to reappoint them for a reason that would not constitute cause for dismissal. The bill was introduced as a private member's bill by MPP Ted Hsu, with support from the NDP and Greens; the government has not committed either way. It is drawn substantially on the work of the late Dr. Ron Ellis.
Status ◇: verify current standing before relying on this. Private members' bills rarely pass.
Concentration — reported as a structural fact
In the Thunder Bay corpus, the modern docket has been case-managed and decided substantially by a single Vice-Chair, sitting alone or presiding on panels. In the Durham corpus, six reconsideration requests were made and six refused — four decided by the same adjudicator who wrote the original decision, including one where the request alleged bias.
Nothing in either pattern breaches the Rules. Rule 26 does not require reassignment on reconsideration. That is the point. A system in which the author of a decision routinely reviews challenges to it, and in which one adjudicator owns a service's entire docket, produces consistency — and also produces a structural problem of perception in a small legal community where every institutional actor knows every other.
What we would publish if we could
None of the following is available from any public source, and all of it is ordinary administrative data that other justice systems publish:
- Adjudicator complement by year, with appointment and expiry dates, and reappointment rates.
- Caseload per adjudicator, and time-to-decision distributions.
- Disposition mix per adjudicator, reported in aggregate — how many matters end at gates versus hearings.
- Prior professional background of appointees, in categories (applicant-side, respondent-side, government, academic, none).
- Reconsideration reassignment rates.
The last of those is the one that would answer the question this page raises, and it is a single field in a case-management system. The missing layer.
The other people who decide
Police services boards decide budgets, policy and the chief's employment — and are the usual respondent when a police service is taken to the Tribunal. Their composition is a mix of council appointees, community appointees and provincial appointees, and appointment provenance is public record. We report it as public-record fact only, never as insinuation. See the 2027 budget kit for why board composition is the deepest lever a resident has.