Initiative Media Canada Inc. v. Director under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2026 CanLII 31466

In the matter of an appeal under section 27 (1), of an administrative monetary penalty order pursuant to section 21.(6) of the Act

Between:

Initiative Media Canada Inc.

Appellant

and

Director under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Jan Dymond, Vice Chair

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Camille Saucier-Bariteau, Manager, Talent, Omnicom Media

For the Director: Paul Kaufman, Counsel

Heard by way of written submissions

OVERVIEW

1Initiative Media Canada, Inc. (the “appellant”) appeals the Director’s Order with Administrative Penalty (“DO”) dated January 2, 2026 issued by the Director under the Act (the “Director”) for non-compliance with respect to filing of its 2023 accessibility compliance reports pursuant to s. 21 (6) of the Act. The appellant also requests a stay of enforcement of the DO in the event that their request for an extension is granted.

2The DO required the appellant, within 30 days of receipt, to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $2,000.00 under s. 21(3) of the Act to contravening s.14 of the Act, and to file an accessibility report under section 14(1).

3Under s. 27 (1) of the Act, an appeal to the Tribunal with respect to a DO must be filed within 15 days after its deemed receipt. The deadline for filing in this matter was January 20, 2026. The appellant filed an appeal 21 days past the filing deadline on February 10, 2026. They concurrently filed a Notice of Motion requesting that the Tribunal extend the time to file an appeal, as well as a stay of enforcement of the DO.

4The Tribunal ordered the matter to be heard by way of written submissions. Both parties submitted initial submissions in accordance with the deadlines set by the Tribunal. The appellant did not file a reply submission.

RESULT

5The appellant’s motion that the appeal deadline should be extended to allow the appeal to be filed and heard by the Tribunal is denied.

6As the request for extension of the time limit is denied, the request for a stay is moot and, therefore, is not considered.

ANALYSIS

7Section 27 (1) of the Act stipulates that an appeal under section 21, 25 or subsection 33 (8) of the Act must be filed with the Tribunal no later than 15 days after the day on which the order is made.

8Section 27 (1.1) states that the Tribunal may extend the time period specified in subsection (1) for appealing an order made under section 21 or 25 or subsection 33 (8) in order to accommodate a person with a disability or for any other reason that the Tribunal considers appropriate. 2016, c. 5, Sched. 1, s. 5

9Under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, the Tribunal may extend a time limitation under the Act or Regulation to file an appeal if the Tribunal is satisfied there are reasonable grounds for doing so.

10The grounds for considering an extension of time to file an appeal are articulated in Manuel v. Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, 2012 ONSC 1492. On a motion to extend the time to appeal, the Court determined that the overriding consideration is whether the justice of the case compels the Tribunal to conclude that granting an extension is appropriate. The factors to consider in deciding the justice of the case are:

i. the existence of a bona fide intention to appeal within the appeal period;

ii. the length of the delay;

iii. prejudice to the other party; and

iv. the merits of the appeal.

11The analysis requires a balancing of these factors applied to the facts. No one factor takes precedence over the others. The overriding consideration is whether the “justice of the case” requires that an extension be granted.

12The appellant has the onus to demonstrate a factual foundation for the reasonable grounds to grant the extension. Having considered the submissions of both parties, I find that the justice of the case does not support an extension of the time limit for the following reasons.

Bona fide intention to appeal within the appeal period

13The appellant submits that the delay of the filing of the appeal was a result of an administrative breakdown. They submit that the DO was initially received by staff on January 5, 2026, who were not responsible for regulatory compliance; however, after learning of the DO on January 6, 2026, management of the appellant’s parent company contacted the compliance staff of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities office (AODA) January 19, 2026 to initiate filing of the compliance report. They submit that the outstanding 2023 report was filed on January 26, 2026. The appellant’s submissions incorrectly state that the appeal period had ended when they became aware of the DO on January 6, 2026 and they do not offer an explanation as to why an appeal of the DO was not filed until February 10, 2026.

14The Director submits that the appellant has not demonstrated that they had a bona fide intention to appeal within the appeal period. The DO dated January 2, 2026 was issued on January 5, 2026 via email. The Director submitted copies of email correspondence confirming that the DO was sent to six individuals at the appellant firm. The Director notes that the DO provides clear notice, in bold print that appeals must be filed within 15 days of the date of the DO.

15Given that the appellant has acknowledged receipt of the DO on January 6, 2026 and provided no explanation as to why the appeal was only filed on February 10, 2026, I find that the appellant did not have a bona fide intention to appeal within the appeal period.

Length of the delay

16The appellant’s submission does not directly address the length of the delay as a factor for consideration.

17The Director submits that the 21-day delay is not significant in itself but that the Tribunal should consider other factors including: that the underlying 2023 non-compliance in respect of its filing obligations exceeded two years, and that the delay is demonstrative of a pattern of neglecting AODA notices and deadlines. They note that reports are to be filed every three years and that the last report of file for the appellant was filed in 2017.

18The Director submits, as evidence, an affidavit sworn by Tonya Russell, a compliance officer with the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility, as well as copies of correspondence documenting the AODA’s efforts to contact the appellant regarding non-compliance between February 25, 2025 and January 5, 2026.

19I am not persuaded by the Director’s submissions with respect to aggravating factors because I do not find them to be relevant to the analysis of the length of the delay with respect to this appeal.

20I do, however, find the length of delay of 21 days from the end of the 15-day filing period to be significant. The appellant acknowledges that they became aware of the DO on January 6, 2026. The evidence submitted by the Director confirms that the DO includes a notice that an appeal must be filed within 15 days. The appellant has offered no explanation as to why a total of 36 days elapsed before they filed an appeal. With no explanation, I find the delay of 21 days to be significant.

Prejudice to the other party

21The appellant did not make a submission on any prejudice that might attach to the appellant should the extension request be denied. They submit that granting an extension would not result in prejudice to the Director or to the public interest. They submit that they are now in compliance, that there is no harm to the public, and that the enforcement objective of the DO has already been achieved. They argue that allowing the appeal would ensure procedural fairness.

22The Director submits that prejudice is presumed when a limitation period is missed, and relies on the Tribunal finding in 7853742 Canada Inc. o/a Mapleview Homes v. Registrar, Home Construction Regulatory Authority, 2021 ONLAT 13122 NHCLA (“Mapleview Homes”) that, “there is a public interest in ensuring that time limits are met and decisions have finality and are made in a timely way.” I agree with the principle enunciated in the Mapleview Homes decision; however, I am not persuaded by the Director’s argument that Mapleview Homes applies in this case because the delay at issue in that case was three and half months – a considerably longer delay than the 21 days in the case before me. As well, the appellant has filed the outstanding report, thereby mitigating any potential harm to the public. As a result, I find that there is no prejudice to the Director caused by the delay in filing.

23The right of appeal and the Tribunal’s authority to extend a timeline exist in order to afford appellants an opportunity to be heard on the merits of an appeal. Clearly to not grant the extension would prejudice the appellant because they would be unable to appeal the DO.

24I find that the balance of prejudice is to the appellant, which weighs in favour of granting an extension.

Merits of the appeal

25To consider the extension of the time limit based on the merits of the appeal, I must only be satisfied that there is some merit to the appeal based on the submissions before me. This is not an exercise in prejudging the hearing outcome.

26I note that neither the Act nor Regulation 191/11 stipulates the grounds under which an appeal under the Act may be considered, therefore, the merits of the appeal hinge on the reasons for the appeal and on what grounds the appellant believes relief should be granted.

27The appellant did not directly address the merits of the appeal in their motion submissions but in the interests of procedural fairness, I have relied on the reasons stated in the appellant’s Notice of Appeal for analysis.

28The appellant appeals on the basis that the monetary penalty ordered by the Director is disproportionate given the administrative nature of the non-compliance, the lack of actual notice, the absence of harm to the public, and their action in filing the outstanding report. They submit that at the time that the AODA correspondence and DO were issued, the individual previously responsible for compliance was no longer employed and that, as a result, the correspondence was misdirected to individuals who were not responsible for AODA matters and believed the emails to be unsolicited.

29The Director submits that an appeal founded on the basis that the appellant did not receive “actual notice” and that the DO was misdirected would have no merit or reasonable chance of success. The affidavit of Tonya Russell details repeated efforts of AODA staff over the course of 10 months to contact staff and management of the appellant, both by email and by telephone. According to the affidavit, the appellant did not respond to any of the emails or phone calls until the DO advising of a monetary penalty was brought to the attention of responsible parties within the appellant’s parent organization:

i. February 25, 2025, a first notice of non-compliance issued by way of email to the primary contact listed in the AODA database, came back as undeliverable;

ii. February 28, 2025, the first notice was resent by way of email to Cori MacPhee, Senior Director of Corporate Communications, listed as organization’s contact person on the appellant’s website, no response received;

iii. March 11, 2025, AODA staff called and left a voice message for Cori MacPhee advising that a Notice of Proposed Order (“NOPO”) would be issued if no response was received, no response received;

iv. March 13, 2025, an NOPO was sent by email and registered letter to Cori MacPhee. The NOPO was delivered and signed for on March 19, 2025. no response received;

v. April 15, 2025, AODA staff left a follow-up voice message on the general phone line, no response received;

vi. July 23, 2025, NOPO follow up emails sent to Helen Galanis, CEO, and Sammy Rifai, Chief Strategy Officer, no response received;

vii. August 22, 2025, follow up email sent to Sammy Rifai, copied to Helen Galanis, two other individuals and the general email address, no response received;

viii. December 29, 2025, follow up email to Sammy Rifai, copied to Helen Galanis and two others advising that an administrative monetary penalty would be issued if the outstanding report was not received by end of day, no response received;

ix. January 5, 2026, DO issued and sent to Sammy Rifai, copied to Helen Galanis, two others and the general email address; no response received;

x. January 15, 2026, AODA staff left voice messages for Sammy Rifai and Helen Galanis regarding the DO;

xi. January 19, 2026, email response received from Camille Saucier-Bariteau, Manager Talent, Omnicom media, a parent company of the appellant.

30Considering the Director’s well documented evidence of the past notices of non-compliance and the appellant’s failure the respond over several months, I find that an appeal that a monetary penalty is disproportionate based on lack of “actual notice”, that the emails were misdirected by the AODA, and that the failure to respond as a case of administrative oversight does not have sufficient merit to satisfy the related criterion for extension of time.

31Based on the parties’ submissions and the facts of this case, I find that the appellant has not persuaded me that the appeal has any chance of success should the matter proceed to a hearing.

Conclusion

32Having considered the criteria established in Manuel and s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, I am not satisfied that the justice of the case supports granting an extension. While I find that the prejudice to the appellant weighs in favour of the appellant, I find that factor alone does not establish that the justice of the case requires an extension given my findings that the appellant did not have a bona fide intention to file within the appeal period; that the 21-day delay was significant, and that the appeal lacks merit.

33As I find that the appellant had no bona fide intention to appeal during the statutory appeal period, that the delay in filing an appeal was significant, and the appeal lacks merit, the motion for the extension of time for filing is denied.

34As I have denied the appellant’s request for an extension of time for filing, the request for a stay is moot.

ORDER

35For the reasons stated above, the appellant’s motion to extend the time limit for filing an appeal is dismissed. The appeal is dismissed.