I think it depends a lot on the commitment of resources.
If you were to have a tribunal that gives claimants direct access, I think you would need to ensure that they are sufficiently supported in making claims, because otherwise the concerns about accessibility, the gains in accessibility, will essentially be lost.
I think that, if you commit the resources, then it's a good idea to have direct access tribunals, in part because the history of the model of commission with tribunal has shown that there are quite a large number of delays that arise when you have a commissioner who has multiple responsibilities. It's hard to achieve all the functions that a commissioner would be charged with, in addition to bringing complaints and referring complaints to a tribunal.
I think if you have sufficient resources to support claimants in front of a direct access tribunal, and then you ensure that the commissioner has all the resources necessary to do the kind of systemic work that Monsieur Forgues has noted to support communities, then I think you can allow the commissioner to focus on larger systemic questions rather than spend all of the time on specific complaints. Assuming sufficient resources and assuming that the commissioner is going to be freed up and given powers to do systemic inquiries and the kinds of cultural changes that Monsieur Forgues has mentioned, I think that a direct access tribunal would be a good model to proceed with.