Carroll v. Ontario: One Father's HRTO Case Against the Autism Waitlist
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.
Background: Why I Filed
My son has autism. Like 87,692 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 Ontario Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination in services based on disability
- The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that government services must accommodate disabled people unless doing so causes undue hardship
- The government knows autism services in early childhood are time-critical — WHO guidelines, the government's own expert reports, and years of pediatric research confirm that delays cause lifelong, irreversible harm
- Despite this knowledge, the waitlist has grown from 24,000 children in 2019 to 87,692 children in 2025 — a 281% increase — while funding increased only 54%
The government is not just failing to help. It is actively maintaining a system that delivers services too late to be most effective, to children it knows will be harmed by the delay, on the basis of their disability.
That is discrimination.
The Legal Arguments
1. Adverse Effect Discrimination
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.
2. Failure to Accommodate
The Ontario Human Rights Code requires the government to accommodate disability to the point of undue hardship. The application argues that:
- The government has documented the harm caused by delayed autism intervention
- The government has the financial capacity to substantially reduce wait times
- The government has chosen not to do so
- This constitutes a failure to accommodate disability
3. The Dignity Standard
The Human Rights Code protects equal dignity and equal treatment. A 5-year wait for services that are most effective in the early years is not equal treatment — it is a system designed to fail.
Why HRTO?
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:
- Require the government to develop a plan to eliminate the waitlist
- Set enforceable timelines for service delivery
- Establish a right to interim services while waiting
- Create accountability mechanisms the government currently lacks
The Government's Position
In HRTO proceedings, the respondent (Ontario) typically argues:
- The service is provided to all eligible children equally (ignoring that "equally slow" is still discriminatory)
- Resource allocation decisions are within government discretion
- Any delay reflects systemic resource constraints, not discriminatory intent
These arguments have been rejected by Canadian courts in other disability contexts. The question is not whether the government intended discrimination — it's whether the effect is discriminatory.
What This Could Mean for Families
A successful HRTO application in Carroll v. Ontario could establish:
- A legal right to timely autism services — not just eventual services
- An obligation on the government to develop a waitlist reduction plan with enforceable milestones
- Systemic remedies requiring funding changes, not just individual remedy
- Precedent for future human rights claims by other waiting families
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.
How to Follow the Case
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:
- Sign up for our email list
- Follow @EndTheWaitON on social media
If You Want to File Your Own HRTO Application
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:
- HRTO filing: hrto.ca
- ARCH Disability Law: 416-482-8255 | archdisability.com
- Legal Aid Ontario: legalaid.on.ca
- Our legal rights guide: /legal-rights-autism-waitlist
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.