This submission outlines recent developments for the reporting period June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2012 related to discrimination in employment and the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s (the OHRC) mandate. It includes OHRC activities, recent case law and comment regarding relevant ILO Committee observations and direct requests.
The Code protects people from discrimination and harassment because of past, present and perceived disabilities. “Disability” covers a broad range and degree of conditions, some visible and some not visible. A disability may have been present from birth, caused by an accident, or developed over time.
There are physical, mental and learning disabilities, mental disorders, hearing or vision disabilities, epilepsy, mental health disabilities and addictions, environmental sensitivities, and other conditions.
- Policy on accessible education for students with disabilities (2018)
- Policy on drug and alcohol testing (2016)
- Policy on ableism and discrimination based on disability (2016)
- Policy on preventing discrimination based on mental health disabilities and addictions (2014)
- Policy on environmental sensitivities (Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2014)
October 1, 2012 - Ontario Human Rights Commission Submission Regarding Ministry of Community and Social Services Proposed regulation amending Ontario Regulation 191/11 (Integrated Accessibility Standards) under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005. The OHRC welcomes the introduction of new accessibility standards for outdoor space including the requirement for organizations to consult with persons with disabilities. The OHRC, however, has a number of concerns and recommendations...
March 1 2013 - The OHRC recognizes that accessibility requirements have been enhanced with each new edition of the Building Code regulation and welcomes the latest proposal for new barrier-free design requirements. The OHRC also has a number of concerns about the proposed changes as well as additional recommendations for barrier-free requirements in the Building Code regulation.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) welcomes the opportunity to provide input to the government’s legislated review of the Child and Family Services Act (CFSA). Section 1 of Ontario’s Human Rights Code protects children from discrimination in services, because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, family status or disability.
April 22, 2015 - The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) welcomes the government’s commitment to find solutions to public concerns with police record checks. The OHRC agrees that there is a lack of consistency with the various levels of record checks and their purposes, as well as the types of information disclosed, which creates confusion for everyone.
Mr. Tang alleged that the respondents, McMaster University, the Faculty of Health Sciences, the Centre for Student Development and the Medical Sciences Graduate Program, breached the Human Rights Code by failing to meet their substantive and procedural obligations to accommodate him.
Twenty-five years after it was enacted, the provincial government (Government) is reviewing and revising the Police Services Act as part of its Strategy for a Safer Ontario (SSO). The OHRC welcomes the opportunity to provide input to the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (Ministry) on the SSO.
On May 31, 2016, the Court of Appeal for Ontario unanimously upheld decisions by the HRTO, which had found that Sharon Fair (Fair) had been subjected to employment-related discrimination by the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (the School Board) and had ordered compensation for special and for general damages ($30,000) as well as an order for Fair’s reinstatement. The HRTO’s decisions had earlier been upheld by the Divisional Court.
Supplementary Submission of the Ontario Human Rights Commission to the
Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services’ Provincial Segregation Review
The applicant, Ian Cole, is a middle-aged man with a severe intellectual disability who lives in the community. To live in the community, Mr. Cole depends on the receipt of nursing services. The primary source of funding for the nursing services is his local Community Care Access Centre (CCAC). The maximum funding for nursing services is set out in a regulation made under the Home Care and Community Services Act, 1994. At the time the application was filed, funding was available for nursing services to a maximum of four visits per day.