Blog
advocacyIn 2025, Spencer Carroll filed a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario application against the Ontario government, arguing the 5-year autism waitlist constitutes disability discrimination. Here's what the case argues and why it matters for every waiting family.
In 2025, I filed a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) application (File No. 2025-62264-I) against the Government of Ontario. This is the story of that case, what it argues, and why it matters for every family waiting for autism services.
Note: The case is ongoing. This post describes the legal arguments and context. Nothing here should be taken as legal advice.
My son has autism. Like 89,799 other Ontario children, he has been waiting years for OAP core services. During that wait, I began researching the legal framework around the government's obligations.
What I found was stark:
The government has maintained a system that, according to its own data, delivers services years after the window when they are most effective — to children whose developmental needs are well-documented. Families and legal advocates argue this constitutes discrimination on the basis of disability.
That is the legal question at the heart of the HRTO proceedings.
The HRTO application argues that the OAP waitlist system — regardless of intent — creates an adverse discriminatory effect on autistic children compared to children without disabilities who can access developmental services in a timely manner.
Autistic children need specific, evidence-based services to develop. The government's decision to provide those services through a 5+ year waitlist means autistic children receive critical support years after the optimal intervention window has passed, while similarly-situated non-disabled children do not face comparable waits for developmental support.
The Ontario Human Rights Code requires the government to accommodate disability to the point of undue hardship. The application argues that:
The Human Rights Code protects equal dignity and equal treatment. A 5-year wait for services that are most effective in the early years raises serious questions about whether the system provides equal access to children with disabilities.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is an independent adjudicative body. Applications are free to file, legal representation is not required (though recommended), and rulings can have broad systemic impact.
Previous HRTO decisions have forced Ontario to change policies in education, housing, and employment discrimination. An autism waitlist ruling could:
Legal Notice: This section contains the author's independent analysis of publicly known government policy positions. It does not constitute legal advice, does not disclose privileged communications, and is not intended to influence HRTO proceedings. Carroll v. Ontario (File 2025-62264-I) is an active matter — readers should consult independent legal counsel for case-specific guidance.
Carroll v. Ontario (File 2025-62264-I) is an active proceeding before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. Updates will be posted as the process advances. For background on how HRTO proceedings work, visit the HRTO website.
In Burland v. Precise ParkLink Inc., 2026 ONSC 1587, the Ontario Divisional Court set aside a HRTO dismissal and emphasized that while the HRTO may decline jurisdiction where a related civil action exists, that discretion must be exercised carefully — particularly when the HRTO application and the civil action address different time periods and seek distinct remedies. Burland is a recent procedural authority that strengthens the position of HRTO applicants whose claims are not duplicative of civil proceedings.
For Carroll v. Ontario, the practical implication is that systemic-discrimination claims — which seek prospective, structural remedies (waitlist reduction, funding adequacy, accommodation under undue-hardship analysis) that no civil action could deliver — fall squarely within the HRTO's specialized expertise. The case is appropriately before the Tribunal.
If successful, the HRTO application in Carroll v. Ontario could potentially establish:
More immediately, the case puts on public record the evidence of harm — documented in FOI data, government reports, and WHO guidelines — that the government has tried to minimize.
Updates on Carroll v. Ontario are published on this site as they become available. The HRTO maintains a public docket but individual file access is restricted.
To be notified of case updates:
You have the right to file your own HRTO application. The process is accessible to self-represented individuals. ARCH Disability Law Centre provides free legal advice to assist.
Relevant information:
This post reflects my personal experience and the public legal arguments made in the HRTO application. It is not legal advice. For legal guidance on your specific situation, contact a qualified lawyer or ARCH Disability Law Centre.
Sources: Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Ontario Human Rights Code, Supreme Court of Canada disability jurisprudence, Ontario Autism Program data.
Commitment to Accuracy: Our data is verified against official government reports (FAO, MCCSS), peer-reviewed scientific literature, and accessible public records. Last updated: March 24, 2026.
Keep reading
Ontario has the longest autism waitlist in Canada and among the lowest per-child funding relative to need. Here's how Ontario compares to BC, Alberta, Quebec, and the Maritimes — and what Ontario can learn.
The OAP waitlist now exceeds 89,799 children with wait times of 5+ years. We break down current wait times by region and what you can do while waiting.
The Ontario autism waitlist has reached a historic high of 89,799 children. Learn about the causes, impacts, and what families can do while waiting for critical services.
Where do you start?
Start with one clear route, then move to evidence or action when you are ready.
Verified Facts
89,799, children are registered in the Ontario Autism Program
23%, Only 20,633 children have active funding agreements — less than one in four
WHO recommends accessible, community-based early interventions for children with autism — timely evidence-based psychosocial interventions improve communication and social engagement