CACE was invited to present to the Standing Committee on Agencies at the Ontario Legislature on February 9, 2009.  Our submissions covered five broad areas.

Firstly, it was recognized that in the months leading up to Bill 107 the Tribunal engaged in a consultative process that was broad, open and transparent.  It was recognized that the Tribunal undertook significant efforts to reach out to all of the stakeholders in designing its processes.

Secondly, it was noted that there are a number of housekeeping issues that need to be undertaken, and that at times there is lack of clarity around some of the procedural issues at the Tribunal.  It was clear that our members had concerns about the mistakes made regarding some of the process issues, including deadlines and the various paper requirements of the Tribunal.  However, it was also noted that while there are significant housekeeping issues, the Tribunal is making sincere efforts to address them.  The Tribunal is regarded as providing "good customer service", and it is our experience that the Tribunal generally errs on the side of allowing extensions and is open to dialogue in fixing the mistakes that have been made.

Thirdly, there was an appreciation for the flexible processes and the speed with which the new Tribunal is handling and streamlining cases.  Respondents have indicated that so far this model is far preferable to the old Commission model with its inordinate delays.

In addition to the above comments, we outlined two main areas of concern raised by our members.

Firstly, there is widespread concern about a lack of an appropriate screening mechanism to screen out frivolous complaints.  It is not clear how rigorously the Tribunal is screening out complaints that are not "within jurisdiction".  Our members expressed frustration about an inability to have vexatious matters "tossed out" before being required to file a full Response on the merits.

Secondly, and related to this, is the inability of Respondents to claim costs where an Application has been dismissed, or at least in cases which are frivolous and vexatious and in which significant time, resources and money have been expended to defend against a matter that should not have been allowed to proceed.  The absence of some kind of sanction for vexatious applications is a concern for the Respondent community.