Scrutiny of Tribunals has Become a Farce
The Government of Ontario makes hundreds of appointments to adjudicative tribunals over the course of a mandate. The Adjudicative Tribunal Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009, requires that appointments to adjudicative tribunals be merit-based and that appointees have expertise in dispute resolution and the tribunal’s subject matter.
The Standing Committee on Government Agencies is supposed to provide some oversight to the process to ensure that appointees are qualified for the position they are being appointed to and that the appointment is not based on patronage.
The Committee has the power to ask proposed appointees to appear before the Committee to answer questions on their qualifications and suitability for appointment for the positions they are being appointed to.
Over the past few years, this process has become a farce: intended appointees decline to appear with no sanction, and many appointments are made in a way that exempts them from review.
Adjudicative tribunals deal with legal matters that would otherwise be dealt with by the courts – human rights, landlord and tenant disputes, land use disputes, entitlement to social benefits, or benefits after a work-related or motor vehicle accident, to name but a few.
As with the courts, public confidence in the system requires that the people appointed to adjudicative tribunals be, and be seen to be, independent and fully competent to make decisions that can have profound effects on the people appearing before them.
Failure to attend
In the past, prospective appointees who were asked to appear before the Committee took the invitation to appear seriously and would make necessary arrangements to ensure that they were available. This approach largely ended after the Ford government was elected in 2018.
Under the rules of the Legislature (which can be, and have been, amended) the Committee has only 30 days to deal with an intended appointment. The timetable is such that there is typically only one time slot available within the 30 days. If a person advises they are not available at that time, there are no consequences, and the appointment is approved automatically with no oversight.
The 30-day window can be extended, but this requires unanimous consent of the Committee which since 2018 has always been withheld by the government members of the Committee.
Tribunal Watch recommendations:
- If a proposed appointee says they are not available to appear before the Committee and if the time to appear is not extended, the proposed appointee must explain in writing why they are not available to attend.
- The proposed appointee must provide written answers to written questions posed by Committee members before the Committee considers the appointment.
- The Committee should report the names of prospective appointees who have been called to appear before the Committee but did not appear.
Exemptions from the process
The Committee’s Terms of Reference provides that intended appointees are exempt from the Committee’s review if the appointment is for one year or less.
While there is a certain logic to this, it has been repeatedly used to appoint individuals to senior leadership positions who have clear political affiliation to the governing party and who do not appear to have the legislatively required expertise. The person is appointed for a one-year term, thus avoiding scrutiny by the Committee and then reappointed for extended terms. The Committee’s mandate does not include reappointments.
Tribunal Watch Recommendations:
- The Committee mandate should be amended to give the Committee the power to call any individual proposed for re-appointment after an initial appointment of one year or less.
- The Committee should seek an amendment to the rules to ensure that all intended appointees to Executive Chair, Chair, Associate Chair and Vice-Chair positions will be asked to appear before the Committee regardless of the length of the appointment term.
Process when the Legislature is not sitting
The Committee has the power to decide if it will sit when the Legislature is not sitting. Until the most recent recess (from June 1 to October 27, 2026) the government members of the Committee consistently used their majority to vote against a motion that the Committee continue to sit.
When the Committee does not sit, proposed appointments are approved automatically without review by the Committee. Many questionable appointments were made in this way to avoid scrutiny.
In June 2026, the Speaker determined that the decision about whether to sit was correctly made by a sub-committee and not the committee as a whole. The sub-committee, with a majority of Opposition members, decided that the Committee should sit during the recess. It did so however only sporadically at a time the government reduced the number of proposed appointees.
Tribunal Watch Recommendation
The Committee mandate should be amended to ensure that the Committee sits when the Legislature is not in session.
The Committee has ignored its mandate to provide oversight of the system
In addition to a mandate to review individual appointments, the Committee is empowered to “review and report to the House” its observations, opinions and recommendations on the operation of all tribunals and other bodies to which the government makes appointments. The Committee can make recommendations about such things as accountability, mandate and role.
Since 2018, the Committee has not fulfilled this important part of its mandate. No tribunal or agency has been reviewed, despite public concern about many tribunals, including the Landlord and Tenant Board, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and the Licence Appeal Tribunal.
The need for oversight of tribunals is particularly acute at present because the position of Ombudsman of Ontario has been vacant for several months. The Ombudsman has the power to investigate tribunals and to recommend improvements. Unlike the Committee, the Office of the Ombudsman has used this power to address significant problems at tribunals (for example: Administrative Justice Delayed, Fairness Denied).
Tribunal Watch recommendation:
The Committee should fulfill its full mandate and ask Tribunals Ontario to appear before the Committee to answer questions about the numerous well documented problems at key tribunals including the Landlord and Tenant Board, the Human Rights Tribunal, and the License Appeal Tribunal.