Most "AODA fine" headlines miss the real risk. In Ontario, you don't typically get fined over an inaccessible website — you get a human-rights complaint. Here's how that actually works.
The AODA has no private right of action
This surprises people: an individual cannot sue you under the AODA. The AODA is enforced administratively by the province (notices, orders, penalties — a progressive process, with the headline maximums rarely if ever applied).
The path that affects most businesses is different.
The real path: the Human Rights Code → HRTO
A person who can't use your website because of a disability can file a discrimination-in-services complaint under the Ontario Human Rights Code with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO). No employee-count threshold. No "we're too small."
How it tends to unfold:
- Application filed with the HRTO describing the barrier (e.g., a checkout unusable with a screen reader).
- Response required from your organization within a deadline.
- Mediation — many matters resolve here.
- Hearing if unresolved, with evidence and (often) an accessibility expert.
- Remedy — typically an order to fix the site plus monetary compensation for the complainant.
What it costs
Two separate costs, and the second one stings even when you "win":
- Compensation: Ontario HRTO general-damages awards for this kind of matter typically land in the ~$10,000–$40,000 range (Ontario awards run lower than U.S. ADA figures).
- Defense: legal fees to respond to and defend a single complaint commonly run $30,000+ — regardless of outcome.
And if you sell into the U.S., you carry ADA exposure on top, where litigation volume and costs are far higher.
Why an overlay makes this worse, not better
A complainant's expert will test with real assistive technology — exactly where overlays fail. The widget won't be a defense; if anything, running one (the FTC fined the biggest vendor $1M) undercuts a claim that you took accessibility seriously.
The thing that actually protects you: good faith
Tribunals and regulators distinguish between organizations that ignored accessibility and those acting in good faith. The evidence of good faith is concrete:
- a recent audit against WCAG 2.2 AA,
- a documented remediation plan, and
- proof you've started fixing the code.
That package doesn't just look good — it reduces both the odds of a complaint succeeding and the cost of resolving one. It's the cheapest, highest-leverage thing you can do.
Build your good-faith file — start free
The PassProof Report is step one: a documented snapshot of where your site stands against Ontario's rules, in ~30 seconds, with a fixed-price path to remediation and audit-ready docs.
👉 Get your free PassProof Report
PassProof is a remote-first accessibility-engineering studio serving Ontario. This is accessibility-engineering guidance, not legal advice — for advice on a specific complaint, talk to your counsel (we'll work alongside them).