Archive

In our society we have different levels of rights – Charter rights, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Code rights, from Ontario’s Human Rights Code, statutory rights created by laws and other “perceived rights.” As people better understand their rights and wish to exercise them, some of those rights can come into conflict. For example, the right to be free from discrimination on the ground of religious creed, or sexual orientation or gender can sometimes appear to be at odds with other rights.

After the policy dialogue, we created a draft framework for dealing with competing rights in a respectful way that considered the rights of all involved. We presented this model to a diverse group of stakeholders in an intense two-day session. The framework is now being fine-tuned for the next step – creating a formal policy that offers practical steps for considering the possibility of solutions that will both respect and support everyone’s rights.

Tribunals and courts face a growing need to balance competing rights, in areas such as religion and sexual orientation. One example of this balancing act is Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Christian Horizons, a lengthy and complex case which was appealed to the Ontario Divisional Court.

A good example of rights and responsibilities colliding is the case of Deepinder Loomba, a Sikh man who wears a turban. In his job as a security guard, he was assigned to monitor security at a Home Depot store that was still under construction. Although there were signs stating hardhats were required on the site, Mr. Loomba did not wear one because it interfered with the turban he wore as an element of his faith.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently agreed to hear the case of a woman who wanted to exercise her right to express her religion by continuing to wear her niqab while testifying in a sexual assault case. This case involves a possible conflict between the right to religious freedom and a defendant’s right, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to face their accuser as part of their “full answer and defence” to the charges against them.

Ontario’s Human Rights Code is clear – the right of people to express their opinion is protected. In support of this principle, we intervened at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) in Whitely v. Osprey Media Publishing Inc. and Sun Media Corporation.

Preventing discrimination is at the heart of the Ontario Human Rights Code. The courts and tribunals continue to clarify what this means. One example is a landmark ruling in September 2010. In Tranchemontagne v. the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a lower court ruling that two alcoholics were entitled to disability benefits. This case looked at what constituted discrimination in human rights law.

One of the OHRC’s key roles is to educate people across Ontario about their rights and responsibilities under the Code. The challenge is to use limited resources to meet unlimited requests for education and information. The Internet is a big part of meeting this challenge, and is helping us reach a greater audience than ever before.

On December 10, 2010, to mark International Human Rights Day, the OHRC launched its second e-learning module, at an event hosted by the York Centre for Human Rights. This module provides online learning and training for everyone who needs information on human rights issues that come up in rental housing.

In May 2010, the Toronto Police Service, the Toronto Police Services Board and the Ontario Human Rights Commission celebrated a major milestone in their joint project to bring about institutional change to eliminate racism and discrimination – the completion of the three-year Human Rights Project Charter initiative.

Policing is a critical part of communities across Ontario – police officers are woven into our neighbourhoods and our daily lives, and are often the first people we see in times of crisis. A person’s experience with police – positive or negative – can affect them in a lasting, personal way. That’s why adding a human rights perspective to policing is so important.

The OHRC provides tools and approaches that individuals, organizations and sectors across Ontario can use in their own efforts to advance human rights. But the need to understand human rights extends beyond employers and the provincial government. Local governments make decisions on issues ranging from child care to public transit – in fact, they provide many of the direct services in our communities. The rules they set and the services they provide can have a major impact on human rights.

In June 2010, the OHRC joined its colleagues across Canada to launch www.cashra.ca, a new website to showcase the work of Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial human rights agencies. This site provides links to all human rights agencies in Canada as well as to initiatives, news and opinions of national interest coming from the partner organizations.

“Getting the message out” is a critical part of the work we do. This past year the OHRC began to take advantage of the communication tools offered by social media. In a few months we’ve attracted 400 “friends” to our Facebook page and more than 500 ”followers” to our Twitter stream. We’ve discovered that those two media reach different audiences looking for different sorts of stories. We’ve also found that we are increasing the awareness of all our work among people who we might not reach with ”traditional” publications.

Even though e-learning and other electronic options make training large numbers of people more possible, there is still a need to meet with people across Ontario – and in some cases across Canada and the world – to “put a face” to human rights. Staff consulted and offered human rights training on mental health, racism, school discipline, Aboriginal issues, municipal zoning and other issues. Here are some highlights:

When a new issue arises, we often hear about it first in the media. And the media is often the best venue for commenting on an issue to a wide audience. The OHRC continued to use media interviews, releases and advisories, and letters to the editor to respond to issues, correct inaccuracies and educate new audiences about human rights. Examples of letters to the editor from Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall included:

The Province of Ontario will mark the 50th anniversary of the Human Rights Code – the first in Canada – in June, 2012.

Following a lengthy hearing process, involving a complaint filed under the Human Rights Code by Michael McKinnon against the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, it was proposed that a joint working group of the three parties be struck to both support MCSCS’s change initiatives and to satisfy the OHRC’s need to ensure the process for change addresses its public interest concerns.

Access to Affordable Rental Housing It seems clear that one of the central causes of the difficulty that many individuals in Ontario have in accessing living accommodations is the lack of adequate, affordable rental housing.

In 2004-2005, the Commission received 100 complaints relating to discrimination in housing.[51] While this number amounts to only about 4 percent of the total complaints received by the Commission during this time period, the complaints that have been filed frequently raise significant systemic issues, issues that potentially affect large numbers of people besides the actual complainant.

All jurisdictions in Canada provide for some protection from discrimination in the social area of housing.[53] Harassment is not explicitly addressed in all cases,[54] but may be dealt with as a form of discrimination.

The international community has long recognized that housing is a human right worthy of protection.

Status and Purpose of the Code The Code is quasi-constitutional legislation which has primacy over all other legislation in Ontario, unless the other legislation specifically states that it applies despite the Code.[77] This means that if another piece of legislation contains a provision which conflicts with or contravenes the Code, the Code will prevail.

Discrimination in rental housing can take various forms. One does not have to show that the discrimination was deliberate, malicious or even intentional. Even actions that are unintended or comments that are “only a joke”, are prohibited if they are offensive and discriminatory based on a ground in the Code.