2014-2015 Annual Report

Ombudsman’s Message: A Decade of Progress

This annual report is a milestone for the Ombudsman’s Office. We are approaching our 40^th anniversary, and I have had the honour of serving Ontarians as Ombudsman for just over 10 of those years. The past decade has been a time of remarkable change and progress in government accountability. Even more lies ahead in the coming months, with the historic expansion of our mandate to municipalities, universities and school boards.

Oversight of the broader public sector is something that this Office has called for since it was established on October 30, 1975, under the first Ombudsman, Arthur Maloney. The Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act, 2014 – known familiarly as “Bill 8” – finally opens these organizations to independent scrutiny comparable to that of provincial government bodies, and brings oversight in Ontario closer to the national norm.

We will begin taking complaints about school boards on September 1, 2015, and municipalities and universities on January 1, 2016. After 10 years of documenting the thousands of complaints in these areas that we were forced to turn away, it is gratifying to be able to share this positive news.

As we mark the end of a decade of constructive work for Ontarians and look ahead to the new challenges and responsibilities that will come with our expanded mandate, this report presents an important opportunity to review not just what we and the government have accomplished in the past year, but to reflect on broader trends and developments of the past 10 years. Overall, the news is good: I have seen real improvements in the way government responds to public grievances and findings of systemic failure – although, as always, there are a few areas where progress remains frustratingly elusive.

Systemic Change, Inside and Out

The Ombudsman’s Office was established in 1975 to help Ontarians resolve problems with provincial government services and administration, and to advocate for good governance by exposing underlying systemic weaknesses.

When I took over in 2005, I learned that the Deputy Ministers Council had included the Office on its list of programs targeted for elimination, as a cost-saving measure. Although it was quietly doing good work, the Ombudsman’s Office had evolved into an organization that dealt primarily with individual grievances and small administrative problems.

My goal was to return the Office to its roots as the province’s watchdog. Facing the threat of being closed down, and without any additional resources, my team and I refocused our operations to allow us to take on the broad systemic issues that affect millions of people, while still resolving thousands of individual complaints each year.

One of our first systemic investigations in 2005 (documented in our report The Right to be Impatient) revealed the stunning lack of newborn screening tests being done on Ontario babies – even though much of the technology was developed here and exported around the world. The government acted swiftly on my recommendations, creating a state-of-the-art facility to test for serious, preventable disorders. In 2005, Ontario was only testing for two medical conditions, lagging behind most developed countries. Today, every baby is screened for 29 disorders, preventing the death or serious disability of some 50 children per year. We continue to keep tabs on the program (as noted in the Systemic Investigations: Special Ombudsman Response Team section of this report). It has been a great privilege to help bring about such positive, pervasive change that is still helping families today.
 

“Thank you for your advocacy. Baby Etienne is doing great because they caught the disorder before he could get sick.”

Twitter follower [re newborn screening], November 2014

Since 2005, we have completed 35 systemic investigations into a wide range of issues – from care for children with acute special needs (also 2005-2006) to the billing and customer service fiasco at Hydro One this past year. The government has agreed with all but a handful of our recommendations, resulting in reforms that have helped parents, property taxpayers, lottery players and millions of others. We handled 193,038 individual complaints over that period – 23,153 in 2014-2015. And throughout this time, we have kept the cost of running our Office ($11.36 million this past year) well below $1 per Ontarian.

I have always believed that the Ombudsman’s job is not only to help people, but to reveal some of the problems that government faces, and the progress it is making towards fixing them. An invisible ombudsman is an ineffective ombudsman. Being in the public eye and ensuring that our reports make an impact is an important part of our work. When we root out problems affecting large numbers of people and the government implements our proposed solutions, we help government avert more complaints, while demonstrating to the public that coming to us really can make a difference.

This inspiration has driven our work over the past 10 years: Conducting large-scale field investigations that are now a model for our counterparts across North America and around the world; working proactively with government to resolve problems before they fester; and using technology to allow us to track complaint trends, enrich our investigations, publicize our work and engage with the public. By all measures, Ontarians have heard the watchdog’s bark: Tens of thousands engage with us on social media, millions have heard about us in the news, and public complaints have steadily increased – 86% since 2009-2010. (More details can be found in the Communications and Outreach and Training and Consultation sections of this report.)

A Partnership for Accountability: The Good News

One of the most constructive developments I have observed over the past decade is an improvement in government’s response to citizen complaints and an increased level of co-operation on issues, large and small.

In the early days of my tenure, it would often take a full systemic investigation to prompt government action. Now, many complaints and issues can be resolved quickly and informally because of good relationships between my Office’s staff and the Ontario public service. The co-operation starts at the top. I have had quarterly meetings with the Secretary of the Cabinet (who is also the head of the public service), to discuss issues and trends and how government services can be improved. Senior managers from our Office also meet regularly with high-ranking officials in the most complained-about ministries and organizations to flag problems before they grow. This has resulted in us resolving many systemic issues without resorting to a full-scale investigation.

For example, in recent years, we have worked closely with the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services to resolve and track serious issues involving inmate safety and medical care. Our approach since 2005 has been to ensure that most complaints we receive from correctional facilities are resolved quickly by the facilities themselves, while we concentrate on urgent matters relating to health and safety. Among the serious issues we flagged to the Ministry recently are the treatment of transgender inmates, the inappropriate use of segregation, and inadequate response to inmate-on-inmate violence.

We also worked with the Ministry of Colleges, Training and Universities this year to resolve a flood of complaints after the sudden closure of Everest College’s 14 private career training campuses, which left some 2,700 students in the lurch. Although overwhelmed at first by the dire needs of many students, the Ministry worked with us to help them get back on track. (More information about these proactive efforts can be found in the Operations section of this report.)

When we did conduct systemic investigations, the results were overwhelmingly positive. This past year, our investigation into how the Ministry of Education monitors unlicensed daycares is a case in point. After our investigation uncovered an outdated and inadequate system of investigation that put children at risk – not to mention a litany of bureaucratic missteps that I recommended be used as a teaching tool in future for what NOT to do – the government’s response was swift and uncompromising: All 113 recommendations were accepted, and new legislation that addresses many of them was passed mere weeks after my report, Careless About Child Care, was published.

There was similar positive follow-up to In the Line of Duty, our 2012 report on operational stress injury and suicide among OPP and police, and The Code, our 2013 report on the excessive use of force by correctional officers. The OPP and, in both cases, the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, reported significant progress on implementing my recommendations. The same Ministry also finally saw a key recommendation fulfilled from my 2010 report on the expansion of police powers during the G20 in Toronto, Caught in the Act: The government passed long-promised legislation to replace the World-War-II-era Public Works Protection Act, ensuring it could never again be used to enable mass violations of civil rights.

There was good news on the accountability front, too, from many municipalities where our Office is the investigator for complaints about closed meetings, a responsibility we have had since 2008. More municipalities – 203as of March 31, up from 195 a year ago – are using our Office as their investigator, and a growing number (now about a dozen) have accepted my recommendation that they digitally record their closed meetings, to ensure accuracy. Newly elected councils – including in cities where our Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team (OMLET) investigations met with resistance in the past, such as Sudbury and London – have pledged to be more transparent, which bodes well for Bill 8, and is also a credit to members of the public who made their feelings known through civic activism, social media and the ballot box. (Our separate OMLET Annual Report will be published later in the fiscal year.) The new mayor of Brampton even proposed to have my Office conduct a public inquiry in the wake of a corruption scandal in that city – however, special dispensation from the provincial government was not granted, meaning consideration of the matter will have to wait until our Bill 8 mandate is in effect.
 

“Your response to [a constituent]’s request by having a representative from your Office call to discuss his concerns so speedily is admirable. It is heartening to me, as a member of the Legislature, to know that we have – in you – an officer who takes his duty to serve the public of Ontario so seriously.”

Letter from John Yakabuski, PC MPP, Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, March 2015

“I hold the Ontario Ombudsman’s Office in the highest regard. The Office is made up of intelligent, concerned, hard-working people who have nothing but the best interests of the Ontario public in heart and mind. I thank them very much for their efforts and well reasoned arguments, win, lose or draw. If asked, I support without reservation, the Ontario Ombudsman’s oversight of the MUSH sector.”

Email from Tiny Township Mayor Ray Millar, September 2014

Our Office worked constructively with MPPs over the past decade as well, resolving hundreds of complaints from their constituents and issues that they referred personally. MPPs of all parties have shown strong support for the Office in recent years, another sign of how far we have come from the days when its very existence was threatened. The expansion of our role through Bill 8 was the culmination of many years of calls by MPPs for Ombudsman oversight of the broader public sector, through private member’s bills and the tabling of public petitions in the Legislature – 16 of the former since 2005 alone, and 142 of the latter.

… And the Not-so-good News

Looking at 10 years of public complaints and major investigations, certain themes emerge. A lot of our time has been devoted to reminding uncaring and rigid bureaucracies of their duty to serve the public and the human consequences of their actions. We have seen plenty of improvements, but some organizations are resistant, unable or unwilling to change. At times, it can feel like one step forward, two steps back.

The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) and Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) are consistently among our “Top 5” complaint-getters. Although we have a constructive relationship with these organizations and have worked with them through some big challenges, new ones are constantly cropping up. Last year, we reported on a communication breakdown between both agencies that deprived thousands of FRO recipients of money owed to them; this year, the ODSP was awash with new complaints due to glitches in the brand-new Social Assistance Management System (SAMS), launched in November 2014.

In my first term, our investigations of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (2006) and the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (2007) exposed how badly things can go wrong when public corporations forget their duty as public servants. The results were good news – MPAC’s assessment process became more transparent and fair, and the lottery system now offers players protection against insider theft and fraud. Unfortunately for Hydro One’s thousands of overbilled and underserved customers, it had to learn this same lesson all over again this year, in the wake of the disastrous introduction of its new customer information system in 2013. The utility accepted 65 of the 66 recommendations in my May 2015 report, In the Dark, including that it put its duty to the public first. The bad news was that, thanks to the government’s plan to partially privatize Hydro One, it was removed from my oversight (and that of all my fellow officers of the Legislature), sadly leaving my 66^th recommendation unfulfilled.
 

“Given the corporation’s checkered billing and customer service history, the government’s continuing investment in this major energy provider, and the overriding public interest in ensuring accountability and transparency, Hydro One should remain subject to oversight by the Office of the Ombudsman, and my fellow Legislative Officers.”

Ombudsman André Marin, submission to committee hearing on Bill 91, May 2015

Similarly, despite two investigations – in 2008 and 2011 – demonstrating the need for stronger legislation to support the Special Investigations Unit in its important work in holding police to account, the government’s response has been disappointing. It has paid lip service to the concept of civilian oversight, which benefits police as well as the public, but successive Attorneys General have been silent on giving it the legislative teeth it needs to ensure police co-operate with its investigations. Policing remains the area where it has been most difficult to effect change in the past 10 years.

I will have more to say about police co-operation later this year when I report on my most recent investigation, involving how the province trains and directs police officers in the de-escalation of potential conflicts with people in crisis. Because it affects police directly, I invited the input of every police service, chief and association, even though I do not oversee them. The response was mixed, although those who co-operated did so constructively. I look forward to sharing the results of that report with the public and policing community soon.

 

Life, Death and Rulitis

Most disturbingly, some of the weakest areas of performance we’ve observed have involved government services that can literally be matters of life and death. In addition to policing, these include the myriad organizations that deal with all aspects of health care – from treatment to insurance to home supports – and the many agencies that assist people with complex special needs.

Many families come to us exhausted and desperate from having to navigate multiple provincial ministries, Local Health Integration Networks, Community Care Access Centres, and a multitude of ministry-funded local service providers to get help. It’s no surprise that the links between all of these organizations are sometimes weak.

My very first systemic investigation in 2005, detailed in my report Between a Rock and a Hard Place, exposed the heart-wrenching choice faced by parents of children whose extreme special needs required them to be placed in residential care. They were told that the only way to get such placements was to surrender their custody to children’s aid societies. After we exposed this unjust situation, custody of some 70 children was returned to their parents. However, similar cases continue to come to our attention from time to time, usually because of a lack of communication or understanding between agencies and government-funded services. We resolved six such cases this past year, in four different areas of the province.

On a related note, our work continues on our most complex investigation to date, into services for adults with developmental disabilities who are in crisis. As difficult as it is to find placements for children with severe and complex special needs, the problem is exacerbated once those children become adults. We have received more than 1,300 complaints since launching this investigation in late 2012, many involving people with developmental disabilities who have ended up in homeless shelters, hospitals and even jail because there is nowhere for them to go. Wherever possible, our staff have worked to ensure the various agencies and service providers come together to resolve individual crises; meanwhile, our systemic investigation is nearly complete and I plan to release my report and recommendations later this year.

Our focus on the individual human impact of these cases has been key to our success. In 2006, I referred to the all-too-common bureaucratic malady that I dubbed “rulitis” – adherence to rules at the expense of common sense. We continue to see outbreaks of rulitis, which is often most acute and toxic in the area of health care, especially when medical evidence collides with arbitrary rules.

For example, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care was refusing to fund a particular chemotherapy drug for a woman experiencing a third occurrence of breast cancer, because its rule was that it would only cover second occurrences. We worked with the woman’s doctor and the Ministry to get a temporary revision of the funding criteria – a change that will benefit an estimated 100 women over the next three years.

The Ministry also established an appeal process for exceptional cases where northern Ontario patients have to travel for treatment, after we flagged the case of a woman who was denied Northern Health Travel Grant compensation because her trip was just seven kilometres short of the required 200. And it improved the frustrating, convoluted customer service system at Trillium Drug Program that forced a woman to write three different letters to confirm her insurance was running out and she urgently needed funding for her medication.

In another case, after a woman complained that she was forced to pay $7,000 to enroll her daughter in a substance abuse program while government-funded spots in the same program sat empty, we persuaded the Local Health Integration Network to arrange for the program to refund her money and improve its rules for screening program applicants.

Stories like these represent not just “wins” for our Office, but for the public and government alike. (Examples of more individual cases where our staff made a difference can be found in the Case Summaries section of this report.)

Big Challenges Ahead

Our experience of the past decade has positioned this Office well for the first major expansion of our mandate since 1975. Since the introduction of Bill 8 a year ago, we have been preparing for our new responsibility by researching and reaching out to municipalities, universities and school boards. My staff and I have made numerous presentations to stakeholder groups in these areas, and we will ensure they and the public are well informed about what to expect when we open our doors to new complaints, starting with school boards this September.

We are already well aware of some of the significant complaint areas, having tracked complaints from the so-called “MUSH” sector (municipalities, universities, school boards, hospitals and long-term care homes, as well as children’s aid societies and police) since 2005. Fiscal 2014-2015 was no exception, since Bill 8 was still not in effect, and complaints about MUSH organizations continued to pour in – 3,383, just under last year’s peak of 3,400. Clearly, public demand indicates that oversight of this sector cannot come soon enough.

Bill 8 will bring municipalities (always the largest source of MUSH complaints, with a record 1,656 this past year) under my Office’s direct jurisdiction, as well as universities (with a remarkable 72 complaints this year) and school boards (260 complaints). Although it does not give this Office direct oversight of hospitals and long-term care – something ombudsmen in most other provinces have – we will oversee the new Patient Ombudsman, whenever it is created. And while Ontario’s child protection system will remain the only one in Canada without Ombudsman oversight, it will finally be open to independent scrutiny now that my fellow officer of the Legislature, the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, has been given investigative powers under Bill 8.

It is worth noting that, even when all of the new oversight enabled by Bill 8 is in place – and to be clear, as of the writing of this report, no date had been set for the establishment of the Patient Ombudsman or the Child Advocate’s new powers – Ontario will still lag behind much of Canada in this area. Oversight of police will not change at all. And our “MUS” oversight, while welcome, is hardly revolutionary – five other provincial and territorial ombudsmen already oversee municipalities and school boards, and two oversee universities. (More details can be found in the next section of this report: Beyond Scrutiny: MUSH Sector Complaints.)

As part of our preparations for our new responsibilities, my Office has partnered with Canada’s Public Policy Forum, which will convene stakeholders in all three parts of the “MUS” sector, to hear their concerns and inform them about the workings of our Office and Bill 8, in a series of roundtable meetings and an informational conference this fall.

Municipalities, for example, have the power to establish codes of conduct and create their own strong accountability offices, such as ombudsmen, auditors general and integrity commissioners. The principle of accountability envisioned by Bill 8 is not to have the Ombudsman usurp that power, but to strengthen and support local complaint offices, ensuring they provide effective and consistent service.

Universities already have some experience with Ombudsman work, although just 57% have internal ombudsmen. I and my senior team have met with university presidents and ombudsmen from across Ontario to encourage them to establish and strengthen those roles. We have offered training for university ombudsmen and addressed student groups about how we will handle complaints, drawing on our long experience in investigating issues with colleges of applied arts and technology.

Building on the progress we have made over the past decade, including an effective team, tried-and-true procedures and investigative methods that are now emulated around the world, we look forward to taking on this historic new responsibility.

To the next 40

It has been a privilege to serve this province through this remarkable decade, and to guide this Office toward its 40th anniversary amid such strong support from the public and government. This appreciation for our Office’s work is demonstrated in our complaint numbers, public comments and genuine, lasting improvements in government services that have helped millions of people. Soon, we will be able to help millions more, thanks to the vote of confidence given to us through Bill 8. We will be ready when Ontarians call.

“[We have] received a substantial number of complaints directed against… Boards of Education, universities, public hospitals and municipalities. … Because these bodies have important decision-making powers and take actions which affect the lives of all of us, and further because … they are identified with the provincial government in view of the monies received by them from the government, it is my intention to recommend to the Legislature that I be given the requisite jurisdiction to investigate complaints respecting these institutions.”

Arthur Maloney, Ontario’s first Ombudsman, speech marking the Office’s first anniversary, October 1976

“I wish I could take full credit for this initiative, but I cannot. It was the idea of Arthur Maloney, the first Ombudsman… I want more power for this Office so that the people of Ontario can have the benefits of an effective government watchdog when they have their most frequent and, often, most important contacts with government … I will continue throughout my mandate to push to remedy the jurisdictional failings of this Office.”

Ombudsman André Marin, Annual Report 2005-2006

“The legislation we are proposing would extend the mandate of the Ombudsman – one of the bedrocks of accountable government…We want Ontarians to trust that their public institutions are acting responsibly, and so we’re proposing to extend the Ombudsman’s oversight to municipalities, school boards, and publicly funded universities.”

John Milloy, then-Minister of Government Services, April 2014

---

The Year In Review

Beyond Scrutiny: MUSH Sector Complaints

 

How the Ontario Ombudsman’s Mandate Compares to Others’ in MUSH Sector

	Municipalities	Universities	School Boards	Public Hospitals	Long-Term Care Homes	Child Protection Services	Police Complaints Review Mechanism
ONTARIO	YES, as of Jan. 1, 2016	YES, as of Jan. 1, 2016	YES, as of Sept. 1, 2015	Oversight of Patient Ombudsman once it is in place	NO	NO	NO
British Columbia	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Alberta	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Saskatchewan	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Manitoba	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Quebec	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
New Brunswick	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Newfoundland and Labrador	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Nova Scotia	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Yukon	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No

“M” – Municipalities

Municipalities have consistently been the top source of MUSH sector complaints to our Office. Fittingly, this was the first part of the MUSH sector that the province opened to greater accountability – including limited Ombudsman oversight. In 2007, provisions of the Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act took effect, allowing all municipalities to appoint their own accountability officers, such as an ombudsman, auditor general, integrity commissioner and lobbyist registrar. At that time, the Ombudsman committed to monitoring the development of these oversight mechanisms:
 

“Although this Office does not have formal jurisdiction over municipalities or any ombudsmen they might appoint, because of the very high degree of influence which municipal government decisions have on the lives of all Ontario citizens, [we intend] to monitor the development of oversight mechanisms in all… municipalities. Special attention will be paid to municipalities which fail to establish offices or set up offices that are weak or tokenistic.”

Ombudsman André Marin, Annual Report 2006-2007

In 2008, changes to the Municipal Act, 2001, came into force, requiring that municipalities either appoint an investigator for public complaints about closed municipal meetings or rely on the Ombudsman, who was designated the default investigator for such complaints. Municipalities were permitted to hire their own investigators if they so chose.

As of the writing of this report, very few municipal accountability officers exist. The only municipality to appoint its own ombudsman is Toronto, which was required to do so under the City of Toronto Act; only Toronto and Ottawa have auditors general in place, and roughly 30 of Ontario’s 444 municipalities have integrity commissioners.

The Ombudsman was the closed meeting investigator for 203 municipalities across the province as of March 31, 2015, and received 152 closed meeting complaints in fiscal 2014-2015. Reports on these investigations, conducted by the Ombudsman’s Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team (OMLET), are posted on our website and reviewed in our separate OMLET Annual Report, to be released later this fiscal year.

We received a record 1,656 complaints and inquiries about municipalities in 2014-2015. Some 247 of these related to municipal electricity utilities, likely due to the Ombudsman’s investigation into billing and customer service problems at the provincially-run Hydro One.

Among these complaints were allegations of conflicts of interest amongst councillors, inadequate by-law enforcement, substandard conditions in public housing, problems with access to support and service at Ontario Works, and inadequate public consultation about zoning and property development issues.

One man complained that his municipality allowed a “river” of storm water from 22 adjacent properties to drain over and damage his land. City councillors complained that colleagues had voted on matters that could benefit them financially. Citizens complained about inaccurate and unfair water bills. A woman with a disability complained that her municipality would not waive a fine it gave her for parking in a disabled parking space, even though she had a permit.

Brampton city council recently made a special request to allow the Ombudsman to begin looking into matters in that municipality immediately, in the wake of recent scandals. On May 4, 2015, the council unanimously passed a motion directing the Mayor to ask the province to appoint the Ombudsman to initiate an inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act “into the affairs of the Corporation of the City of Brampton, and in particular into potential misconduct in procurement, real estate, planning approvals and any other area.” According to media reports in late June, the Ministry of the Attorney General declined this request.

“U” – Universities

Although our Office can and does investigate complaints about Ontario’s colleges of applied arts and technology, universities have historically been immune from our scrutiny because of their governance structure. In 2014-2015, we received a record 72 complaints and inquiries about universities, up 76% from 41 the previous year.

Students sought our help with such issues as a lack of accommodation for those with disabilities, inappropriate fees, and problems with accessing their records. For example, a student with a disability who could only take half of a part-time course complained that he had to pay full price, and that the university’s promise of reimbursement was denied by its financial services department.

“S” – School Boards

We received 260 complaints and inquiries about school boards in 2014-2015, by far the highest number to date.

These included concerns about bus service, support for students with disabilities, inadequate consultation about school closure decisions, school board hiring practices, and deteriorating school buildings.

For example, a father complained that his son, who has a disability, had to be pulled out of school because neither parent was able to transport him and the board could not arrange busing for him. Seven families complained about one board that decided to transfer their children to different schools without consulting them, to accommodate a high school changing to a junior high.

Although full Ombudsman oversight of school boards does not begin until September 1, 2015, our Office has had temporary oversight of some school boards in the past, on the rare occasions when the Ministry of Education has taken direct control of them by appointing supervisors. On three occasions between 2005 and 2015, the Ombudsman was able to receive complaints about school boards under supervision: Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board (October 2006-August 2007), Toronto Catholic District School Board (June 2008-January 2011), and Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board (August 2012-November 2013). We responded to these complaints by referring complainants appropriately and raising issues with the supervisors. We initiated a practice of holding regular meetings with supervisors and monitored the boards’ progress in responding to concerns and implementing improvements.

“H” – Hospitals – and long-term care homes

Patients, family members, and some staff of Ontario’s hospitals approached us with 475 complaints about hospitals and 84 complaints about long-term care homes in 2014-2015.

Hospital complaints included such issues as insufficient communication with patients and families, unsafe conditions, unsatisfactory responses by the hospitals’ in-house patient advocates, refusals to release patients from psychiatric care facilities, and unexpected bills for services thought to be covered by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP). People who contacted us about long-term care homes were concerned about their loved ones being pressured to accept unwanted treatment, billing practices, insufficient medical care, and staff conduct. We also received complaints from staff, such as a long-term care worker who was concerned about inadequate infection control.

Although we were unable to investigate these complaints, we referred people to help wherever possible.

Hospitals and long-term care have historically been the area of the MUSH sector that faced the strongest public pressure for Ombudsman oversight. This is in part because they deal with life-and-death matters, they account for large amounts of public spending, and ombudsmen in comparable jurisdictions (e.g., Quebec) oversee them. More private member’s bills have called for Ombudsman oversight of hospitals and long-term care than any other areas of the MUSH sector (10 of the 16 bills referenced hospital oversight; 9 long-term care).

Common complaints about hospitals and long-term care homes over the years have included concerns about poor service, delays, inconsistent application of policies, administrative errors, hiring of medical personnel, quality assurance measures and communications. There remains no independent investigative body to look into these issues, or complaints about in-house hospital patient advocates (sometimes called “ombudsmen”).
 

“[P]atients may question the independence of [internal hospital complaint mechanisms], given the institution’s interest in protecting its own reputation and its close relationship to medical staff… moral suasion from a sufficiently resourced and independent ombudsman or commissioner can positively drive system change.”

Colleen Flood and Kathryn May, “How to avoid a toothless tiger,” Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2012

Our Office only has authority over hospitals on the rare occasions when the government takes control of them by appointing a supervisor. This has happened about a dozen times since 2005. In these cases, the Ombudsman received a range of complaints, from problems with hospital record-keeping to long emergency room wait times and inadequate infection control. When warranted, our Office held regular telephone meetings with the relevant hospital supervisors to flag significant cases and trends and monitor the response.

In 2008, the Ombudsman launched a systemic investigation into how the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care monitors inspections of long-term care homes. Although we were not able to investigate the homes themselves, the Ministry committed to numerous improvements that the Special Ombudsman Response Team continues to monitor.

As of the writing of this report, no date has been set to establish the Patient Ombudsman created by Bill 8, which will be responsible for handling complaints about hospitals and long-term care homes, as well as Community Care Access Centres. Although the Patient Ombudsman will report to the government and is therefore not fully independent, it is subject to the oversight of our Office, and we will be able to review complaints about it once it is operational.

Children’s aid societies

In 2014-2015, the Ombudsman received 478 complaints and inquiries about children’s aid societies (CASs) across Ontario. Concerns were raised about abuse of children in care, failure of CASs to enforce court orders, and lack of reasons given by CASs when apprehending children or keeping them from seeing their parents.

We also received 15 complaints about the Child and Family Services Review Board, some expressing dissatisfaction with its restricted jurisdiction. Although the board oversees CASs, its narrow mandate allows it to consider only procedural concerns about children’s aid societies filed by those actually “seeking or receiving services.” It is also limited to granting procedural remedies, such as ordering that a CAS respond or provide reasons for a decision.

Early in his first term, the Ombudsman called for the Office’s jurisdiction to be expanded to include children’s aid societies. At the time, the shocking death of five-year-old Jeffrey Baldwin, who had been placed by a CAS in the care of his abusive grandparents, highlighted the need for oversight of child protection in Ontario. Since then, seven of the 16 private member’s bills calling for expanded Ombudsman oversight have related to children’s aid societies. Two of those went to second reading – further than any other MUSH sector oversight bill, other than the government’s Bill 8 – but did not pass.
 

“With time, persistence and enough public demand for transparency and accountability, I am confident CASs and other such organizations will eventually have to come into the light.”

Ombudsman André Marin, Annual Report 2007-2008

Ontario remains the only province in Canada whose ombudsman does not have oversight of child protection services. Our Office did have jurisdiction over the Huron-Perth CAS briefly when the province appointed a supervisor to take it over in 2010-2011. As with other MUSH bodies under provincial supervision, we flagged several serious complaints about this CAS to the supervisor and ensured they were resolved.

A few legislative changes have been made since 2005 to bolster oversight of CASs, including the establishment of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth as an independent officer of the legislature – like the Ombudsman – in 2007. However, the Advocate’s office was not given any investigative authority until Bill 8 was passed in December 2014. As of the writing of this report, the date for the Advocate’s new powers to take effect had not yet been proclaimed.

Police

The Ombudsman received 358 complaints and inquiries about police in 2014-2015.

Some of these involved concerns about harassment and abuse by police officers, refusal of police to respond to complaints, inappropriate treatment of people with disabilities, inadequate enforcement of the law, and unsatisfactory responses to complaints about police conduct.

One woman who called police for help because she was suicidal told us half a dozen officers came to her home, treated her roughly, handcuffed her and would not let her get dressed. Another who called police to report abuse by a boyfriend said they urged her not to pursue charges and to let him stay in her home. A man complained that police had put him on a list of “people who bother the police.” We refer complaints about police, where appropriate, to the Ministry of the Attorney General’s Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) or the Special Investigations Unit (SIU).

The OIPRD was created in 2007 by Bill 103, the Independent Police Review Act, 2007. It has substantial authority to investigate the conduct of police, but is not independent of government, and is specifically excluded from Ombudsman oversight, unlike the SIU, which only investigates cases where police are involved in serious injuries or deaths. The Ontario Civilian Police Commission is also immune from Ombudsman oversight of its handling of public complaints about police.

In 2014-2015, we received 22 complaints and inquiries about the OIPRD, which we had to turn away. People were concerned about the quality of the agency’s investigations, that it referred their complaints back to the police organizations they complained about, and that it failed to look into their concerns.

Under Bill 8, the Ombudsman will have jurisdiction over municipalities as of January 1, 2016 – however, the legislation specifically excludes municipal police services boards, meaning no change to oversight of police. Several municipal and police officials, as well as members of the public, have expressed support for Ombudsman oversight of police services boards. The Ombudsman will continue to track complaints about police and revisit this issue in future reports.

Operations Overview: Complaint Trends and Significant Cases

Our Office received 23,153 complaints and inquiries in 2014-2015. Although down from last year’s remarkable 26,999 – an unprecedented spike due to the large volume of complaints received about Hydro One – this number is part of a steady increase since 2010. As the accompanying chart of total complaints for the past decade shows, the number dipped in 2009-2010 to 12,444. In that year, the Ombudsman instituted a new digital complaints management system to enable more efficient and accurate tracking of data and trends. He referred to this as the Office’s “truth in advertising” initiative in the 2009-2010 Annual Report:
 

“There is a story behind the story told in these charts and figures, and it is another chapter in our ongoing work toward reform and transparency: Over the past few years, we have continuously refined our complaints management system to track public concerns as accurately as possible… All public calls are triaged, so the most urgent matters are dealt with immediately, and complex complaints are distinguished from… other basic inquiries… For instance, when a number of inmates at a correctional facility complain to us about the same problem, or submit a petition, this is now counted as one group complaint, as opposed to several dozen individual complaints.”

Ombudsman André Marin, Annual Report 2009-2010

Cases received April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2015

• 2005-2006: 23,922

• 2006-2007: 20,226

• 2007-2008: 16,754

• 2008-2009: 16,742

• 2008-2009: 12,444

• 2010-2011: 14,531

• 2011-2012: 18,541

• 2012-2013: 19,726

• 2013-2014: 26,999

• 2014-2015: 23,153

Complaints have climbed 86% between 2009-2010 and this past year, while our system of triage and early resolution ensured that most (53.6%) were resolved within two weeks in 2014-2015, and 46.2% within one week.

The Operations section of our Office consists of teams of Early Resolution Officers and Investigators, who focus on resolving individual cases, usually through quick, informal contact with the organization complained about. More complex issues are referred for formal investigation, and some cases and trends are brought to the attention of senior government officials. Senior Ombudsman staff meet regularly with officials from the most complained-about organizations, programs and ministries, proactively alerting them to growing problems and helping to nip them in the bud.

Both teams work closely with the Special Ombudsman Response Team (SORT) to identify and resolve potential systemic problems wherever possible. The SORT section of this report outlines our systemic work of the past year, and past decade.

The Case Summaries section of this report features examples of the many individual cases that were successfully resolved, helping Ontarians unsnarl themselves from complicated bureaucratic messes and red tape.

The following section outlines key issues and complaint trends addressed by our Operations staff – listed by relevant ministry in alphabetical order.
 

“This experience has been one of the most trying times of my life and your support means more than words can justify. Your customer service and dedication has been second to none. [The person who handled my case has] my sincerest gratitude for being a person that I have been able to get assistance and resolution from. Even though they are small steps, they are in the right direction. Thank you so much for everything.”

Email from complainant

Ministry of the Attorney General

Ministry of Community and Social Services

   

Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

         

Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

 

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities

We received 615 complaints relating to this ministry in 2014-2015. Some 274 were about private career colleges, while 110 involved colleges of applied arts and technology. We also received 156 complaints about the Ontario Student Assistance Program. Common complaints about colleges of applied arts and technology involved communication issues and the quality of programs, as well as disagreements with staff decisions on such things as grades and tuition.

 

Ministry of Transportation

In 2014-2015, we received 566 complaints about the Ministry of Transportation, up from 525 last year. Many of these were about the Ministry suspending drivers’ licences inappropriately, refusing to reinstate licences, or its fees or conditions for licence reinstatement. Quarterly meetings between senior Ombudsman and Ministry officials have proactively resolved many individual and potential systemic issues.

     

Administrative tribunals

Our Office consistently receives hundreds of complaints every year about Ontario’s administrative tribunals, the independent, quasi-judicial bodies that make decisions about such things as benefit entitlements, licences, disputes between citizens, or disputes citizens have with the province. In 2014-2105, we received 1,182 complaints about administrative tribunals, whose powers and scope have increased in recent years.

Given their impact on individuals’ lives as well as public services, it is important that administrative tribunals have adequate oversight to ensure they act fairly and within their statutory mandate. Although the Ombudsman cannot overturn tribunal decisions, our Office does have the power to review their decisions and processes and make recommendations. From our unique vantage point and experience in reviewing decisions across the spectrum of tribunals, we can also spot trends and flag issues to the government.

A key issue we are monitoring is the impact of the government’s “10-year rule” – a cabinet directive from 2006 that appointments to regulatory or adjudicative agencies such as tribunals should be limited to 10 years. This raises concerns that many long-term tribunal members may not be reappointed as of 2016, with the potential for shortages in members on some tribunals and an overall decrease in the number of tribunal members with valuable experience.

The Society of Ontario Adjudicators and Regulators recently released a study on the impact of the rule, which warned that tribunals might be unable to fulfill their statutory mandates. Citing the examples of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal and the Ontario Labour Relations Board, it stated: “The loss of half of their adjudicators means that the average level of experience will decline from approximately 10 years to approximately three. This means that half of their adjudicators will have no experience with that tribunal.” The Ombudsman has expressed serious concerns to the government about the need for careful planning to mitigate the impact of this rule on administrative tribunals and their operations. Our Office will monitor developments closely.

 

Systemic Investigations: Special Ombudsman Response Team (SORT)

The Ombudsman created SORT in 2005 to make the most efficient use of the Office’s resources in tackling broad, systemic issues affecting large numbers of people. The team is a dedicated group of investigators, supplemented by other staff as warranted, that tackles complex cases involving extensive amounts of field work, research, interviews and document review.

SORT investigations typically result in stand-alone reports and recommendations aimed at achieving bureaucratic reforms. The Ombudsman’s recommendations arising from these investigations have been overwhelmingly accepted and implemented by the government. Ombudsman staff routinely follow up on all SORT cases to track the progress of recommendations and to ensure problems don’t recur. In cases involving large volumes of complaints, Early Resolution staff and Investigators work alongside SORT staff to ensure individual cases are handled quickly while the systemic issues are reviewed.

The SORT investigation model, including techniques for identifying issues, planning investigations, conducting interviews, assessing evidence and writing and disseminating reports and recommendations, also forms the basis for the Ombudsman’s globally recognized training course for ombudsmen and administrative watchdogs, “Sharpening Your Teeth.” More on this can be found in the Training and Consultation section of this report.

 

Careless About Child Care – Ministry of Education

On October 22, 2014, the Ombudsman released Careless About Child Care, his report on how the Ministry of Education deals with complaints about unlicensed daycares. The investigation was launched in July 2013, after the death of two-year-old Eva Ravikovich amid overcrowded and unsanitary conditions at what the Ombudsman called a “brazenly illegal” home daycare near Toronto. Four children died in unlicensed daycares in the Greater Toronto Area alone in 2013-2014.
 

“To the Ministry’s credit, the shock of Eva’s death and this investigation sparked long overdue improvements. All this makes me hopeful that lessons have been learned from the tragedies covered in our report.”

Ombudsman André Marin, statement regarding the release of Careless About Child Care, October 22, 2014

The investigation revealed what the Ombudsman called a “legacy of dysfunction” that was compounded when the Ministry of Education took over the oversight of daycares from the Ministry of Children and Youth Services in 2012. However, he noted that the inadequacies of the outdated Day Nurseries Act had been known for years, and the momentum for legislative reform had been slow. Among the systemic problems identified were:

• Sloppy, inconsistent complaint intake practices and an inadequate complaint tracking system;

• Ministry guidelines not followed, inspections delayed or never done;

• Staff untrained in conducting investigations or on the legislation they enforce;

• Poor inspection practices, careless evidence gathering;

• Failure to involve or educate parents about daycare standards and facilities that are not in compliance with them; and

• Legal loopholes allowing illegal daycares and operators who are repeat violators to do business with impunity as “private schools” or “camps.”

The Ombudsman issued an unprecedented 113 recommendations, aimed at improving the Ministry’s investigation of complaints about unlicensed daycares and its enforcement of the outdated legislation. These included the establishment of an enforcement team for investigating complaints, adequate resources to ensure effective and timely enforcement, better training and case management tools, and involving parents in the enforcement process, where appropriate.

Although he did not recommend that all daycares be licensed, or that unlicensed daycares be limited to a specific number of children, the Ombudsman did recommend the Ministry consider the feasibility of a centralized registry and tougher standards for all unlicensed daycares.
 

“I welcome the Ombudsman’s recommendations regarding the unlicensed child care sector and how we can improve our system. I am pleased to confirm that over 95 of the report’s 113 recommendations are already being addressed and that work is underway, or planned, for the Ombudsman’s remaining recommendations.”

Statement by Education Minister Liz Sandals, October 22, 2014

The Ministry accepted all of the recommendations in a spirit the Ombudsman described as “genuine and focused.”

Most significantly, the new Child Care Modernization Act was passed and given royal assent in December 2014, replacing the Day Nurseries Act. The new law addresses 35 of the Ombudsman’s recommendations, including increasing fines for illegal operations and empowering inspectors to close them immediately when warranted. It also imposes a new government policy restricting the number of children allowed in an unlicensed daycare to five, including the operator’s own children. The Ombudsman’s report did not recommend such a cap, but noted that under the previous legislation, Ontario’s rules on unlicensed daycare capacity were among the most lax in Canada.

The Ministry provided its first six-month progress report to the Ombudsman in April 2015, noting that 55 of the recommendations were “completed,” while most of the remainder would be dealt with as the new legislation and its accompanying regulations were implemented.

The significant changes the Ministry has already made include:

• Establishment of a dedicated enforcement unit to handle complaints about unlicensed daycares;

• A toll-free phone number for complaints about unlicensed daycares;

• A searchable online registry that allows the public to access information about violations and convictions of unlicensed daycare operators; and

• Updated information on its website for parents seeking child care options.

The Ministry has indicated that it expects to make two further reports to the Ombudsman on the implementation of his recommendations over the next 12 months.
 

“There’s no question that Marin’s report, and the government’s action on it, should lead to safer unregulated daycare in the province. And that is welcome news.”

Editorial, Toronto Star, October 27, 2014

Ongoing Investigations

 

Updates on previous investigations

Several of the outstanding recommendations are addressed in Bill 31, the Transportation Statute Law Amendment Act (Making Ontario’s Roads Safer), 2015, which received royal assent on June 2, 2015. This legislation allows for future regulations that will provide more clarity in the process for identifying potentially dangerous medical conditions, and for nurses and other qualified medical professionals to report drivers with conditions that may make it dangerous for them to drive. The Ombudsman will closely monitor the Ministry’s progress in developing these regulations.

The Code – Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

In June 2013, the Ombudsman released The Code, his report on how the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services responds to allegations of excessive use of force against inmates by correctional staff.

The Ombudsman’s investigation was launched after we flagged a disturbing trend, dating back to 2010, of hundreds of complaints about the use of force by correctional officers against inmates. It revealed that in many cases, the use of force on vulnerable inmates was excessive and often covered up to thwart investigation.

The Ombudsman found that an entrenched “code of silence” among some correctional staff was the root of the problem, hurting vulnerable inmates as well as staff who attempted to speak out about excessive force by colleagues. He made 45 recommendations to the Ministry to improve investigative procedures and staff training in correctional facilities. The Ministry agreed to act on all of the Ombudsman’s recommendations, and reports to our Office on its progress every six months.

The Ministry has implemented 37 of the Ombudsman’s recommendations in the past two years, and continues to work on the remainder, which include installing closed-circuit video in all facilities and universal use of hand-held video recording in potential use-of-force situations. Along with specifically identifying the “code of silence” as grounds for discipline and dismissal, the Ministry has revamped its policies and procedures for the reporting and investigation of use-of-force incidents, and clarified the circumstances in which correctional staff are authorized to use force against inmates.

As well, it has improved its recruitment process for correctional staff, including adding mandatory psychological assessments, and updated its training with material that provides clear instruction on ethical conduct and the use of force.

As noted in the Operations section of this report, the number of complaints to our Office about correctional staff using excessive force on inmates has increased – to 79 this past year, from 71 in 2013-2014.

In response to the Ombudsman’s recommendations, the Ministry introduced a new policy relating to the investigation of incidents of use of force and the completion of documentation. Since then, we have received complaints about lengthy delays in this investigation process, with some cases taking as long as six months. Our Office is working with the relevant Assistant Deputy Minister to address this issue.

In the Line of Duty – Ontario Provincial Police and Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

In October 2012, the Ombudsman released In the Line of Duty, his report on how the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) and the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services were dealing with operational stress injuries, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), affecting police officers. The investigation, sparked by a complaint from former OPP Detective-Inspector Bruce Kruger, revealed the lack of services, training and education for OPP members on the issue of operational stress injuries – in particular, the lack of a suicide awareness and prevention strategy to combat suicides within the OPP, which outnumbered deaths of officers in the line of duty between 1989 and 2012.

The Ombudsman has noted the OPP’s enthusiasm and commitment in acting upon his 28 recommendations (another six recommendations were directed at the Ministry). In September 2014, he wrote to the Commissioner of the OPP to confirm that it no longer needed to provide our Office with formal updates every six months.

SORT has continued to obtain status updates from the OPP on an informal basis. In particular, we are following the OPP’s progress on implementing a suicide prevention program, the expansion of psychological services for specialty units, and the hiring of a full-time OPP psychologist.

Among the notable steps taken by the OPP since the report’s release:

• Creating seven permanent, full-time positions for leaders of Critical Incident Stress Response Teams, which provide peer support for OPP officers;

• Training external clinicians to become familiar with OPP culture;

• Informal lunch-and-learn sessions for officers on mental health awareness;

• A pilot workshop for OPP supervisors on how to recognize early signs of operational stress injury;

• Meeting with municipal and regional police services to exchange ideas on how to address operational stress injuries;

• Enhanced assistance services for retired members;

• Educating members as part of annual training on available support services, critical incident stress management, and building resiliency;

• Establishing the OPP Wellness Unit to provide peer-based support services, training and prevention programs;

• Implementing a mental health and resilience training program called “Road to Mental Readiness” for human resources staff, managers and employees, based on training developed and delivered by the Canadian Forces.

The Ministry also committed to developing a provincewide confidential survey to assess how many active and retired officers in other police services across the province have operational stress injuries. The survey for active officers has been completed; it received approximately 14,000 responses (a 42% response rate), and an analysis is underway. A survey of retired officers is ongoing.

The Ministry is also:

• Working with the Office of the Chief Coroner to identify officer and retired officer suicides;

• Creating a new “Resiliency and Wellness” instructor position at the Ontario Police College;

• Co-ordinating information sharing with police services across the province to address operational stress injuries and suicide prevention;

• Engaging in research to develop provincewide standards for police services and police services boards on operational stress injuries;

• Integrating “Road to Mental Readiness” training, including how to recognize signs of operational stress injury, into basic constable training at the Ontario Police College and into courses for those who deliver in-service training for existing officers.

 

“I’m a former OPP who left after serving only 12 years… I have suffered with PTSD for many decades and didn’t know it. I have lost a marriage, jobs, relationships, self-medicated, I also suffered from anxiety, anger, etc. I knew there was something wrong and couldn’t understand why I was the way I was… I have been to a psychiatrist and put on medication and just today went to my first session with a PTSD counsellor. It’s going to be a long road, but the burden I have been carrying has been lifted and I know there is light at the end of the tunnel. If Bruce Kruger had not contacted you and you had not taken action, I know I would not have had a chance to know what having peace in my life might feel like.”

Former OPP officer, re In the Line of Duty, February 2015

Non-emergency medical transportation services – Ministry of Transportation and Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

In January 2011, the Ombudsman announced an investigation into whether the Ministries of Transportation and Health and Long-Term Care were taking appropriate steps to ensure the safety of the public who use non-emergency medical transportation services. The Ombudsman’s investigation identified issues with poorly maintained vehicles, untrained staff, lack of appropriate equipment and infection control, and no mechanism for handling complaints from the public.

In May 2011, the Ombudsman shared his findings with both ministries. In response, then-Minister of Health and Long-Term Care Deb Matthews and then-Minister of Transportation Kathleen Wynne announced that legislation would be introduced to regulate non-emergency transportation services.

In December 2013, amendments were introduced to the Highway Traffic Act that would have allowed for some regulation of the industry, but the proposed legislation died on the order paper due to the June 2014 election. In September 2014, now-Premier Wynne identified “establishing a regulatory framework for non-medical transportation services” in her public “mandate letter” setting out priorities for the Minister of Transportation.

In April 2015, new amendments to the Highway Traffic Act were introduced (now as Bill 85). The proposed changes will bring much-needed regulation to non-emergency medical transportation – which both ministries now refer to as “stretcher transportation services.” Under the new legislation, the Ministry of Transportation will be responsible for regulations ensuring that vehicles are fit for purpose and operators meet certain qualifications and standards. As well, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care is bringing in new guidelines for hospitals choosing and contracting non-emergency medical transportation service providers. 

The Ombudsman will review the new regulations once they are drafted and will continue to monitor the progress of both ministries on meeting their commitments to better oversight of this industry.

Caught in the Act – Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

The Ombudsman’s December 2010 report, Caught in the Act, examined the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services’ role in the quiet promotion of a regulation under the World-War-II-era Public Works Protection Act (PWPA) to give police extraordinary powers during the G20 summit held in Toronto in June 2010.

The PWPA, first enacted in 1939, was essentially a “war measures” act, intended to protect critical infrastructure in the event of wartime invasion. The Ombudsman found it was wrongly used to allow Toronto Police, who were responsible for policing outside the temporary security fence erected around downtown, to detain some 1,500 people – mostly peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders.
 

“Here in 2010 is the province of Ontario conferring wartime powers on police officers in peacetime. That is a decision that should not have been taken lightly or kept shrouded in secrecy, particularly not in the era of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms… By creating security zones to bar entry and by authorizing arrest, it imposed definite limits on freedom of expression.”

Ombudsman André Marin, Caught in the Act, June 2010

He recommended that the little-known PWPA be repealed to prevent future abuse of its outdated provisions, and that the Ministry ensure the public is informed about any future changes to police powers for special events.

The government and a task force it appointed, headed by Hon. Roy McMurtry, quickly agreed to these recommendations, but repealing and replacing the law took more than four years. Bills to replace the PWPA twice died on the order paper, due to elections in 2012 and 2014.

In December 2014, Bill 35 was passed and given royal assent, repealing the Public Works Protection Act. It also amended the Police Services Act to provide for security at court facilities, and enacted the Security for Electricity Generating Facilities and Nuclear Facilities Act, 2014, which governs security at electricity generating facilities and other critical infrastructure. The legislation was proclaimed in force on June 24, 2015, two days short of the five-year anniversary of the summit.

The courts continue to deal with class action and individual lawsuits against the province and police with regard to civil liberties violations during the G20. In March 2015, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the rights of a would-be demonstrator were violated when a group of York Regional Police officers (part of the joint force policing the area), refused to allow him and his friends to continue downtown without being detained and searched.

In an encounter that was recorded on video and widely circulated on YouTube, the officers told the man:
 

“This ain’t Canada right now… There’s no civil rights in this area … You’re in G20 land now.”

Although the three-judge Court of Appeal panel noted that they were not ruling on the behaviour of police in general during the G20, they found the actions of these officers violated the man’s constitutional right to freedom of expression. They also found the police actions “were not reasonably necessary and had little, if any, impact in reducing threats to public safety, imminent or otherwise.
 

“[T]he police did not have the power to target apparent demonstrators and require that they submit to a search in order to continue down a public street… [They] violated [the demonstrator’s] common law right to travel unimpeded on a public highway, and … also violated his Charter right to freedom of expression.”

Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Paul Rouleau, Figueiras vs. Toronto (Police Services Board), March 30, 2015

Monitoring of long-term care homes – Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

We have monitored developments in the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care’s program of inspecting long-term care homes since the Ombudsman launched an investigation in the summer of 2008. In December 2010, he issued an update on the case, noting that because of significant changes to legislation, the Ministry’s program was a “work in progress.” In lieu of a full report, the Ombudsman and SORT have kept a close eye on the Ministry’s Compliance Branch and the implementation of its Long-Term Care Home Quality Inspection Program.

In the past year, we received 25 complaints about the Compliance Branch, including concerns about delayed inspections and the quality of inspections. We also received 84 complaints directly related to long-term care homes, which we had to turn away, as they remain outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction (more information about this is included in the MUSH sector section of this report).

In early December 2014, concern was expressed in the Legislative Assembly that the government had failed to live up to its April 2014 promise to conduct a “resident quality inspection” (RQI) in every long-term care home by the end of that calendar year. The Ministry responded that all inspections were targeted for completion by mid-January 2015.

An RQI is a two-stage, comprehensive inspection that includes interviews with residents and observations about their care, as well as inspections with a focus on quality of care and quality of life indicators. Our inquiries determined that the Ministry had hired and trained 88 contract inspectors, and that as of January 30, 2015, it had completed RQIs for all 629 long-term care homes. Reports of these inspections were posted on its public website by the end of February 2015.

We also monitored the Ministry’s progress in ensuring timely enforcement of its compliance orders and follow-up inspections, in the wake of concerns about delays. The Ministry said it has developed data reports to better track these orders and inspections.

In addition, our staff alerted the Ministry about several egregious complaints about long-term care residents being abused, neglected and left in unsanitary and unsafe conditions, and complaints to its “action line” going unheard. The Ministry responded with inspections and increased monitoring at some of the homes in question, and pledged to follow up with the residents’ families; we will continue to monitor these cases.

The Right to be Impatient – Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care – Newborn screening

In September 2005, the Ombudsman published The Right to be Impatient, his report on the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care’s administration of newborn screening in Ontario. The primary goal of newborn screening is the early identification of affected infants in time to prevent serious health problems. The investigation revealed internal Ministry documents that estimated that as many as 50 children per year were dying or becoming severely disabled due to disorders which the program could easily have been expanded to detect, if not for what the Ombudsman described as “bureaucratic lethargy.”
 

“I urge the Ministry to heed the lessons learned from the sad history of newborn screening in Ontario… [A]s a result of inertia, inattention and abdication in the past, children have needlessly died and been rendered disabled. If this realization does not motivate this government to stay the course, nothing I recommend will ever do so.”

Ombudsman André Marin, The Right to Be Impatient, September 2005

The government immediately acted to expand the number of genetic screening tests. Prior to the investigation, Ontario babies were tested for only two disorders. Today, Newborn Screening Ontario (NSO), based at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa, co-ordinates screening across the province for 29 disorders. It has a mandate to ensure that testing is done in a timely fashion.

In April 2015, several media articles reported that delays in the process were potentially putting babies at risk. The Toronto Star reported that an estimated 15 of the 142,500 babies born each year screen positive for aggressive diseases that need to be detected in the first week of life for effective treatment. Factors reportedly contributing to the delays were NSO not operating on weekends, and hospitals and/or midwives not submitting newborn blood samples to NSO’s lab immediately, but sending them in batches. The newspaper cited the case of one baby born over the October 2014 Thanksgiving weekend whose positive screen for one disease was not known for five days.
 

“When babies’ lives are at stake, hours, not just days, make a huge difference. Newborn screening needs to be designated an essential service so that no other family goes through what we had to.”

Mother of baby whose screening sample was delayed, quoted in Toronto Star, April 13, 2015

Our Office made inquiries with the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and NSO to determine the steps being taken to address delays. NSO reported that it had established a data warehouse in summer 2014 and a reporting and audit tool in January 2015 to track blood sample transport time. We were told it has seen marked improvement since then, and it continues to analyze this data. It is also evaluating the feasibility of weekend operations and studying the logistics of a weekend courier service for hospitals and midwifery practices to send samples to NSO. We will continue to monitor the progress and result of NSO’s evaluation to ensure the program is timely and effective.

 

Between a Rock and a Hard Place – Ministry of Children and Youth Services

In his first systemic investigation report, released in 2005 and entitled Between a Rock and a Hard Place, the Ombudsman revealed the disturbing problem of parents of children with severe special needs who were unable to obtain care for them unless they surrendered them to the custody of children’s aid societies (CASs). The government immediately committed to ensuring that this would not happen again. However, cases persist where parents are told that the only way they can get residential care for their children is to give up custody, and Ombudsman staff work to resolve these whenever they arise.

We received six such complaints in 2014-2015 – an increase over the previous three years, although significantly less than the disturbing number (44) flagged by the Ombudsman in 2010-2011. Three of the cases involved CAS and Ministry officials from the Central region, and there was one each involving the Toronto, East and West regions.

Five of these cases involved boys aged 9-15 with severe special needs such as autism, fetal alcohol syndrome and violent behaviours; four needed to be placed in residential care, while one required significant support so he could remain at home with his mother. In these cases, the families were wrongly told – both by CAS workers and local service co-ordination agencies – that there was “no money” for treatment unless they placed the children in CAS care. Two of the families surrendered custody in desperation and needed our Office’s help to have it restored.

The sixth case involved a girl who was abandoned by her family because they could not cope while waiting for an appropriate placement and treatment for her. She was identified as having several severe behavioural problems, manifesting in sexually assaultive behaviour, homicidal intentions and suicidal thoughts. In this case, it was the CAS that flagged the family’s situation to the Ministry, noting that they had given up custody “because the mental health/community system was unable to respond and provide the specialized and intensive services for her.”

Ombudsman staff worked with senior Ministry officials, who directed the relevant local service co-ordination agencies in the five boys’ cases to apply for complex special needs funding. The urgent funding requests were approved. In the girl’s case, the Ministry took steps to ensure she received the necessary placement and supports. In all of the cases, the children received access to the treatment they needed.
 

“[Between a Rock and a Hard Place] was a powerful and objective report of a systemic challenge parents and children face in accessing care and services… I am pleased the issue continues to be followed, as does lack of services for the adult population with special needs. Thank you for your continued diligence in investigating this unconscionable issue.”

Anne Larcade, via Facebook, April 2015

Communications & Outreach

Ever since the first ombudsman was created in Sweden more than 200 years ago (the word “ombudsman” is Swedish for “people’s representative”), communication with the public has been integral to the role. Our Office makes use of all available means of communication, from traditional in-person events and print publications to digital and social media, to engage and inform Ontarians in the most effective way possible. Over the past 10 years, the Ombudsman has kept pace with technology, incorporating web and social media tools in investigations as well as communications.

         

Our Office also frequently receives requests to meet with delegations from oversight bodies in other jurisdictions. As noted in last year’s Annual Report, the Ombudsman hosted the annual meeting of his counterparts in the Canadian Council of Parliamentary Ombudsman in Toronto in May 2014, to discuss best practices, mandate changes and engaging the public. Among the international delegations to visit our Office in 2014-2015 were the Banking Ombudsman of New Zealand, senior staff from the office of the Ivory Coast Ombudsman and the Public Service Commission of South Africa, and groups from Guangdong Province and the Beijing Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection in China.

As well, senior Ombudsman staff consulted with and gave presentations about how we work to representatives of Ontario ministries, agencies and interest groups, including the Death Investigation Oversight Council, Home Child Care Association of Ontario, Adult Protective Service Association of Ontario, and Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee.
 

Case Summaries

         

New drug, new hope

After a woman was denied funding for a drug to treat neuropathic pain, her husband came to the Ombudsman for help. The woman has a rare neurological disease and her condition, which is considered palliative, means she has considerable muscle and nerve pain. One of the drugs that helped her pain, Sativex, was only approved for patients with multiple sclerosis, or palliative cancer patients with refractory pain.

When Ombudsman staff asked the Ministry’s Exceptional Access Program to review the case, officials suggested the woman try a different drug, covered under the Ontario Drug Benefit Program. The drug helped control her pain, but she experienced severe side effects, including hallucinations, pounding in her chest, drowsiness, dizziness, anxiety and insomnia.

The Ministry ultimately agreed to consider her case and approved Sativex funding for six months, after which she will be reassessed to confirm if the drug has been effective. The family advised us the drug has eliminated the woman’s pain, with minimal side effects.

Failure to communicate

After the removal of a benign brain tumour, a woman in her 20s suffered a stroke that left her unsteady on her feet, needing assistance to use the bathroom, and with speech difficulties. She had to be hospitalized several times and was placed in the complex care unit of a local hospital for four months.

The woman’s mother turned to the Ombudsman for help in finding a residential placement for her. The hospital was pressuring the mother to care for her at home, but the local Community Care Access Centre could only provide a support worker for 16 hours per week, which would leave her alone during the day while her mother was at work. The CCAC and hospital wanted to move the daughter to a long-term care home, since there was no facility in the community for a person with such a brain injury, but she refused.

Ombudsman staff discovered communication problems between the service providers involved in the case. Some were not familiar with how the Ministry assists with funding for transitional housing for people with acquired brain injuries.

After our review, the daughter was placed in housing for women with similar injuries, which offered access to programs for physical and speech rehabilitation, within an hour of her mother’s home. The CEO of the Local Health Integration Network also agreed to improve communication between local providers and services in the community and surrounding regions.

Rehab Reset

A mother complained to the Ombudsman after she was forced to pay $7,000 for a spot for her adult daughter in a residential treatment program for women with substance abuse issues. The daughter was just two days into the five-week program when a spot became available that was publicly funded through the Local Health Integration Network (LHIN). However, she wasn’t permitted to take this spot, even though it remained empty. The woman felt the program shouldn’t receive funds for an empty spot and that her $7,000 should be refunded.

The LHIN reviewed the woman’s concerns at our Office’s request, and arranged for the treatment program to reimburse the money for the full cost of the daughter’s placement. It also acknowledged problems with the program’s admissions process. The method of pre-screening applicants was inadequate, and one-third of patients dropped out of the program before completing it, leaving the LHIN paying the service provider for empty spots.

After our intervention, the LHIN committed to have the residential program redesign its admissions policy to ensure those enrolled are prepared to participate in a treatment program, including enlisting the help of a clinical psychologist as part of the screening process. The LHIN also committed to reviewing its other funded residential services to ensure they had appropriate admission policies and fewer empty beds.

Burden of proof

A woman turned to the Ombudsman for help when she had trouble renewing her Ontario Health Insurance Plan coverage. She had been living with friends and was struggling to provide proof that she was an Ontario resident so she could renew her OHIP card before it expired on September 30. She tried to renew it at a ServiceOntario office in late August with online bank statements, but these were rejected as proof of residence, since they hadn’t been mailed to her.

The woman continued to gather additional information to establish her address, including documents from the Canada Revenue Agency, but before she could provide them, she received notice that her OHIP coverage had been cancelled because she didn’t provide enough proof during her August visit.

Ombudsman staff contacted the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, which confirmed that ServiceOntario shouldn’t have cancelled her health insurance prior to the expiry date and without allowing her to provide additional information. Ministry staff got in touch with the woman and were able to use the documents she had gathered to confirm her residency. Her health insurance was retroactively reinstated and the woman told Ombudsman staff: “You made my day.”

Lost in the mail

A 62-year-old woman with Crohn’s disease required infusions every eight weeks at a cost of $4,542.76 per treatment. The woman’s private insurance covered 80% of the costs, while the Trillium Drug Program reimbursed her for the remainder, but she was reaching the lifetime maximum for her private insurance coverage and it was about to end.

The woman contacted the Trillium Drug Program to make sure it had the information it needed to cover the full cost of her infusions in future. A Trillium agent asked the woman to provide a letter from the private insurer confirming the coverage was ending. The woman submitted the letter, then contacted Trillium again to confirm her account had been adjusted. A different agent told the woman she would need to submit a second letter confirming the date the private coverage would end. The woman did so, but was contacted by yet another Trillium staff member who asked her for a third letter confirming her benefits would not be reinstated in the future. She asked to speak to a supervisor, but didn’t receive a return call.

After dealing with the issue for more than a month, the woman contacted the Ombudsman, frustrated and concerned that due to Trillium’s convoluted system, her Trillium account wouldn’t be adjusted to cover the costs of her next treatment, which was only three weeks away.

Ombudsman staff escalated the woman’s concerns to senior Trillium staff at the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, who acknowledged the woman had received poor customer service and had been asked for unnecessary information. Trillium provides information to its call centre employees about what is required from a private insurer upon the termination of private coverage, but to prevent this situation in the future, the Ministry agreed that Trillium staff would be required to contact clients in writing to confirm what’s needed if the initial information the client provides isn’t adequate. The Ministry also agreed to update its website with more information about private insurance matters.

The Ministry expedited the review of the woman’s application, and within three days of her call to the Ombudsman, her application was approved and her coverage was updated.

Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities

Ministry of Transportation

     

Your Feedback

“I applaud your vigilance, and that of your capable staff, in ensuring that Ontario government services meet the needs and expectations of the people of our province.”

Letter from Premier Kathleen Wynne, July 15, 2014

“There are many people in power doing the right thing to help out others in the community, which makes things every day a little better. I want to thank you and others for the help, guidance, caring, etc. It really means a lot.”

Complainant

“We commend the Ombudsman’s office for creating the report Careless About Child Care and making 113 recommendations to improve child care in Ontario.... We thank you for such a comprehensive report and bringing this issue to the public.”

Marni Flaherty, Chair, Home Child Care Association of Ontario, October 2014

“Your annual reports underline the clear need for ongoing and independent oversight of provincial corrections, and we laud your organization’s profiling of these important issues... We commend your Office’s coverage of the complaints that come from correctional institutions, and encourage ongoing focus on the conditions and challenges endemic to our provincial correctional system.”

Letter from John Howard Society of Ontario, June 2014

“Everything has really been settled to my satisfaction. Thanks a million for your help, I’m sure I would have gone on forever by myself. My compliments to you and thank God for the Ontario Ombudsman.”

Complainant

“ [The Ombudsman’s] office was a great help in our fight with WSIB.”

Complainant

“Everything has really been settled to my satisfaction. Thanks a million for your help, I’m sure I would have gone on forever by myself. My compliments to you and thank God for the Ontario Ombudsman.”

Complainant

“I would like to thank the Ombudsman once again for this great help extended to me, without which I would not have got the answers I was looking for. Thank you for helping families.”

Complainant

“How you did the work – with respect and kindness – has been so meaningful to us in the midst of something really terrible. We are always grateful for the support from Mr. Marin, from the whole team at the Office of the Ombudsman, and the very personal attention that you gave us.”

Complainant

“You have been a great example for ombudsmen who may be reluctant to see the value in being tough, insistent, and proactive when necessary.”

Letter from Iowa Ombudsman Ruth Cooperrider, August 2014

“Thanks again for all your hard work, humour, blunt honesty and crap you take, to give the taxpayers and residents hope.”

Complainant

“On behalf of our family and many other families who have been affected by Hydro One, I’d like to say THANK YOU!!!”

Complainant

“The Ombudsman overseeing municipalities is absolutely fantastic… I sat for 23 years as a municipal councillor… for 23 years, it has been frustrating to put forth arguments about what is not allowed at the municipal level of government, only to be told it isn’t going to change. Thank you for fighting to get this role, and for the protection this office will afford the taxpayers of Ontario.”

Former municipal councillor

“Can’t believe the speed of [your] response. Wish customer service was this good everywhere I went.”

Municipal councillor (re question about Bill 8)

 

---

 

---

Appendix 1: Complaint Statistics

TOTAL CASES RECEIVED FISCAL YEARS 2010-2011 TO 2014-2015

• 2010-2011: 14,531

• 2011-2012: 18,541

• 2012-2013: 19,726

• 2013-2014: 26,999

• 2014-2015: 23,153

 

CASES RECEIVED BY QUARTER 2012-2013 to 2014-2015

Quarter	Number of Cases
12-13 (1st)	5094
12-13 (2nd)	4843
12-13 (3rd)	5087
12-13 (4th)	4702
13-14 (1st)	4881
13-14 (2nd)	5299
13-14 (3rd)	4722
13-14 (4th)	12089
14-15 (1st)	5883
14-15 (2nd)	5689
14-15 (3rd)	5118
14-15 (4th)	5239

 

CASES OUTSIDE THE OMBUDSMAN'S AUTHORITY RECEIVED 2014-2015

Total: 8,838

Authority	Number of Cases
Outside Ontario	56
Provincial Outside Authority*	399
Federal	978
MUSH	3 383
Private	4 022

*For examples, cases received about courts, Stewardship Ontario and Tarion.

 

CASES RECEIVED ABOUT CLOSED MUNICIPAL MEETINGS 2014-2015*

COMPLAINTS WHERE OMBUDSMAN IS THE INVESTIGATON	94
COMPLAINTS WHERE ANOTHER INVESTIGATOR HAS BEEN APPOINTED	58

*Note: Details of these cases will be released in a separate Annual Report later this year.

 

TOP 15 PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS AND PROGRAMS COMPLAINED ABOUT IN 2014-2015*

		NUMBER OF CASES	PERCENTAGE OF ALL CASES WITHIN AUTHORITY
1	HYDRO ONE	3,499	24.82%
2	FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE	1,167	8.28%
3	ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM	684	4.85%
4	WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD	481	3.41%
5	PRIVATE CAREER COLLEGES BRANCH	274	1.94%
6	TRANSPORTATION - MEDICAL REVIEW	243	1.72%
7	DRIVER LICENSING	200	1.42%
8	DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES PROGRAMS	160	1.14%
9	LEGAL AID ONTARIO	157	1.11%
10	ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM	156	1.11%
11	PUBLIC GUARDIAN AND TRUSTEE	142	1.01%
12	COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRE	128	0.91%
13	SERVICE ONTARIO	128	0.91%
14	COLLGES AND APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY	110	0.78%
15	ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE	101	0.72%

* Excluding correctional facilities.

 

TOP 10 CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES COMPLAINED ABOUT IN 2014-2015

		NUMBER OF CASES	PERCENTAGE OF ALL CASES WITHIN AUTHORITY
1	CENTRAL EAST CORRECTIONAL CENTRE	546	3.87%
2	TORONTO SOUTH DETENTION CENTRE	422	2.99%
3	OTTAWA-CARLETON DETENTION CENTRE	410	2.91%
4	CENTRAL NORTH CORRECTIONAL CENTRE	349	2.48%
5	MAPLEHURST CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX	324	2.30%
6	HAMILTON-WENTWORTH DETENTION CENTRE	214	1.52%
7	ELGIN-MIDDLESEX DETENTION CENTRE	211	1.50%
8	VANIER CENTRE FOR WOMEN	189	1.34%
9	TORONTO EAST DETENTION CENTRE	184	1.31%
10	NIAGARA DETENTION CENTRE	161	1.14%

 

Cases excluding correctional facilities received 2014-2015, by provincial riding*

Provincial Riding	Number of Cases
Ajax-Pickering	76
Algoma-Manitoulin	247
Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale	108
Barrie	164
Beaches-East York	93
Bramalea-Gore-Malton	92
Brampton-Springdale	89
Brampton West	133
Brant	140
Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound	231
Burlington	132
Cambridge	93
Carleton-Mississippi Mills	124
Chatham-Kent-Essex	105
Davenport	96
Don Valley East	91
Don Valley West	90
Dufferin-Caledon	142
Durham	153
Eglinton-Lawrence	90
Elgin-Middlesex-London	160
Essex	100
Etobicoke Centre	73
Etobicoke-Lakeshore	145
Etobicoke North	96
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell	160
Guelph	98
Haldimand-Norfolk	119
Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock	257
Halton	113
Hamilton Centre	168
Hamilton East-Stoney Creek	110
Hamilton Mountain	86
Huron-Bruce	158
Kenora-Rainy River	115
Kingston and the Islands	106
Kitchener Centre	77
Kitchener-Conestoga	100
Kitchener-Waterloo	68
Lambton-Kent-Middlesex	142
Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington	309
Leeds-Grenville	207
London-Fanshawe	134
London North Centre	140
London West	123
Markham-Unionville	26
Mississauga-Brampton South	67
Mississauga East-Cooksville	78
Mississauga-Erindale	67
Mississauga South	73
Mississauga-Streetsville	47
Nepean-Carleton	157
Newmarket-Aurora	106
Niagara Falls	138
Niagara West-Glanbrook	103
Nickel Belt	162
Nipissing	185
Northumberland-Quinte West	186
Oak Ridges-Markham	142
Oakville	78
Oshawa	146
Ottawa Centre	97
Ottawa-Orleans	90
Ottawa South	74
Ottawa-Vanier	92
Ottawa West-Nepean	87
Oxford	93
Parkdale-High Park	99
Parry Sound-Muskoka	280
Perth-Wellington	98
Peterborough	140
Pickering-Scarborough East	80
Prince Edward-Hastings	268
Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke	187
Richmond Hill	75
Sarnia-Lambton	168
Sault Ste. Marie	146
Scarborough-Agincourt	76
Scarborough Centre	96
Scarborough-Guildwood	127
Scarborough-Rouge River	35
Scarborough Southwest	98
Simcoe-Grey	184
Simcoe North	197
St. Catharines	111
St. Paul's	95
Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry	175
Sudbury	154
Thornhill	70
Thunder Bay-Atikokan	123
Thunder Bay-Superior North	103
Timiskaming-Cochrane	197
Timmins-James Bay	115
Toronto Centre	150
Toronto-Danforth	95
Trinity-Spadina	135
Vaughan	85
Welland	152
Wellington-Halton Hills	102
Whitby-Oshawa	95
Willowdale	77
Windsor-Tecumseh	142
Windsor West	128
York Centre	84
York-Simcoe	172
York South-Weston	82
York West	63

*Where a valid postal code is available.
 

MOST COMMON TYPES OF CASES RECEIVED DURING 2014-2015

	Type of Case
1	ACCESS TO, OR DENIAL OF SERVICES; INADEQUATE OR POOR SERVICE
2	DECISION WRONG, UNREASONABLE OR UNFAIR
3	DELAY
4	COMMUNICATION INADEQUATE, IMPROPER OR NO COMMUNICATION
5	ENFORCEMENT UNFAIR OR FAILURE TO ENFORCE
6	LEGISLATION AND/OR REGULATIONS
7	FAILURE TO ADHERE TO POLICIES, PROCEDURES OR GUIDELINES; UNFAIR POLICY/PROCEDURE
8	BROADER PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE
9	INTERNAL COMPLAINTS PROCESS; LACK OF A PROCESS, UNFAIR HANDLING OF COMPLAINT
10	GOVERNMENT FUNDING ISSUE

 

HOW CASES WERE RECEIVED

TELEPHONE, ANSWERING SERVICE, TTY (60.69%)	14,036
IN PERSON (0.23%)	54
INTERNET, EMAIL, MOBILE (31.54%)	7,296
LETTER, FAX (7.54%)	1,743

 

DISPOSITION OF CASES 2014-2015

• 3,955 outstanding on april 1, 2014

• 23,153 received

  • 27,108 cases handled

    • 8,816 cases closed outside authority

    • 16,263 cases closed within authority

      • 2,499 closed after ombudsman's review

      • 2,410 discontinued by complainant

      • 5,672 inquiry made/referral given/resolution facilitated

      • 4,297 resolved with ombudsman's intervention

      • 1,385 resolved without ombudsman's intervention

    • 1,100 info submission

    • 929 cases in progress

 

Total cases received 2014-2015 for provincial government ministries and selected programs*

*Total figures are reported for each provincial government ministry including agencies and programs falling within its portfolio. Each government agency or program receiving 10 or more cases is also included.
 

Government Ministries/Programs	Number of Cases
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS	8
MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	811
ALCOHOL AND GAMING COMMISSION OF ONTARIO	10
ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD	11
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD	15
CHILDREN'S LAWYER	28
CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD	37
HUMAN RIGHTS LEGAL SUPPORT CENTRE	11
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO	71
LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD	95
LEGAL AID ONTARIO	157
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL	17
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC GUARDIAN AND TRUSTEE	142
ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD	16
SOCIAL BENEFITS TRIBUNAL	35
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT	18
MINISTRY OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES	129
MINISTRY-FUNDED SERVICE PROVIDERS	32
SPECIAL NEEDS PROGRAMS – CHILDREN	49
YOUTH CUSTODY FACILITIES	28
MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP, IMMIGRATION AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE	3
MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES	2077
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES PROGRAMS	160
FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE	1167
MINISTRY-FUNDED SERVICE PROVIDERS	25
ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM	68
ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM - DISABILITY ADJUDICATION UNIT	21
MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES	4110
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES	3904
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF CORONER	16
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE	101
PRIVATE SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES BRANCH	14
PROBATION AND PAROLE	40
MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, EMPLOYMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE	7
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION	56
CHILD CARE QUALITY ASSURANCE AND LICENSING BRANCH	15
MINISTRY OF ENERGY	3589
HYDRO ONE	3499
ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD	44
ONTARIO POWER AUTHORITY	17
MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE	122
MINISTRY OF FINANCE	235
FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION	20
LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO	12
MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION	76
ONTARIO LOTTERY AND GAMING CORPORATION	67
MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR FRANCOPHONE AFFAIRS	1
MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT AND CONSUMER SERVICES	268
REGISTRAR GENERAL	63
SERVICE ONTARIO	128
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND LONG-TERM CARE	528
ASSISTIVE DEVICES/HOME OXYGEN PROGRAMS	42
COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES	128
HEALTH PROFESSIONS APPEAL AND REVIEW BOARD	29
LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS	15
MINISTRY-FUNDED SERVICE PROVIDERS	27
ONTARIO HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN	83
ONTARIO PUBLIC DRUG PROGRAMS	57
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT AND COMPLIANCE BRANCH	25
MINISTRY OF LABOUR	680
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES BRANCH	33
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY BRANCH	19
OFFICE OF THE WORKER ADVISER	17
ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD	13
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL	99
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD	481
MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING	34
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND FORESTRY	81
MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES	6
MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 2015 PAN AND PARAPAN AMERICAN GAMES	5
MINISTRY OF TOURISM, CULTURE AND SPORT	25
MINISTRY OF TRAINING, COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES	615
COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY	110
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES	23
ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM	156
PRIVATE CAREER COLLEGES BRANCH	274
SECOND CAREER	26
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION	566
DRIVER LICENSING	200
DRIVER LICENSING - MEDICAL REVIEW SECTION	243
METROLINX/GO TRANSIT	18
VEHICLE LICENSING	45

Appendix 2: How We Work

• COMPLAINT RECEIVED BY EARLY RESOLUTIONS TEAM

  • WITHIN OMBUDSMAN’S MANDATE AND PERSON HAS USED LEGISLATIVE AVENUES OF COMPLAINT

    • NO
      REFER TO APPROPRIATE RESOURCES

    • YES
      RESOLUTION ATTEMPTED

      • RESOLVED OR NO FURTHER ACTION NECESSARY OR

      • NOT RESOLVED

        • INVESTIGATION OR

        • SORT INVESTIGATION (COMPLEX, HIGH-PROFILE, SYSTEMIC ISSUES)

        • NOTICE TO GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION

        • FORMAL INVESTIGATION OR

        • FULL FIELD INVESTIGATION

        • FINDINGS AND REPORT AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS (WHERE WARRANTED)

Appendix 3: About the Office

• Ombudsman: André Marin

• Deputy Ombudsman: Barbara Finlay

• Early Resolutions:

  • Director: Eva Kalisz Rolfe

• Investigations:

  • Director: Sue Haslam

• Special Ombudsman Response Team:

  • Director: Gareth Jones

• Legal Services:

  • Senior Counsel: Wendy Ray

  • Senior Counsel: Laura Pettigrew

• Open Metting Law Enforcement Team

  • Communications:

    • Director: Linda Williamson

  • Corporate and Administrative Services:

    • Director: Scott Miller

 

Early Resolutions: The Early Resolutions team operates as the Office’s front line for receiving, triaging and assessing complaints, providing advice, guidance and referrals to complainants. Early Resolution Officers use a variety of conflict resolution techniques to resolve complaints that fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Investigations: Complaints that cannot be easily resolved are referred to Investigations. The Investigations team conducts issue-driven, focused and timely investigations of individual complaints and systemic issues.

Special Ombudsman Response Team (SORT): The Special Ombudsman Response Team conducts extensive field investigations into complex, systemic, high-profile cases. SORT investigators work in collaboration with Early Resolutions, Investigations and Legal Services, and additional staff are assigned to SORT as needed.

Legal Services: Led by the Office’s two Senior Counsel, the Legal Services team ensures that the Office functions within its legislated mandate and provides expert advice to the Ombudsman and staff in support of the resolution and investigation of complaints, the review and analysis of evidence and the preparation of reports and recommendations. It also co-ordinates the work of the Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team (OMLET), which investigates complaints about closed municipal meetings (received pursuant to the Municipal Act) and engages in education and outreach with municipalities and the public with regard to open meetings.

Communications: In addition to co-ordinating the Ombudsman’s reports, brochures, other publications and videos, the Communications team maintains the Ombudsman’s website and social media presence, assists in outreach activities, and provides support to the Ombudsman and staff in media interviews, press conferences, speeches, presentations and public statements.

Corporate and Administrative Services: The Corporate and Administrative Services team supports the Office in the areas of finance, human resources, administration and information technology.

Appendix 4: Financial Report

During the fiscal year 2014-2015, the total operating expenditures for the Office were $11.413 million. Miscellaneous revenue returned to the government amounted to $50,000, resulting in net expenditures of $11.363 million. The largest categories of expenditures relate to salaries, wages and employee benefits at $9.170 million, which accounts for 80.3% of the Office’s annual operating expenditures.

 

SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES 2014-2015

Expenditures	(in thousands)
Salaries and wages	$7,495
Employee benefits	$1,675
Transportation and communications	$359
Services	$1,539
Supplies and equipment	$345
Annual Operating Expenses	$11,413
Less: Miscellaneous revenue	$50
Net Expenditures	$11,363