Language selector

Site

Search results

  1. Creed accommodation involving cross-sex contact

    July 29, 2015

    Where two human rights conflict, the Supreme Court of Canada has said no rights are absolute, no one right automatically “trumps” any other, and any human right can be limited if it interferes with the rights of others.

    Girls and women often face sexism, marginalization, discrimination, harassment and exclusion throughout society. Women have fought hard over the years for equal rights and treatment.

    People belonging to minority creed communities have faced religious intolerance, including serious persecution, harassment, racism and discrimination.  

  2. Balancing creed and safety – Loomba v. Home Depot Canada

    From: Annual Report 2010-2011: Looking back, moving forward

    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.

  3. Example 5 - Code right v. common law right: Temporary sukkah hut on condo balcony

    From: Competing Human Rights

    Temporary sukkah hut on condo balcony

    Photo of a balcony with a sukkah hut built on it.

    Here is an example of a Code right (creed) versus a common law right (right to peaceful enjoyment of property).

    In this example, a Jewish family is asked to remove a sukkah hut that they placed on their condominium balcony for religious celebration. The sukkah hut would normally stay up for nine days.

  4. Commission issues statement on decision in Maclean’s cases

    April 9, 2008

    Toronto -The Ontario Human Rights Commission has decided not to proceed with complaints filed against Maclean’s magazine related to its publication of an article “The future belongs to Islam.” The complainants alleged that the content of the article and Maclean’s refusal to provide space for a rebuttal violated their human rights. The decision means that the complaints will not be referred to a hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

  5. Example 3 - Code right v. Code right: Muslim barber and woman denied service

    From: Competing Human Rights

    Muslim barber and woman denied service

    Read the following excerpt from a news clipping about a competing rights case. This is an example involving two Code grounds – creed versus sex. When you’re finished reading, answer the questions at the bottom of the page.

    You can also watch this CTV news video about the case.

  6. Letter to Chief Paul Cook, Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) President

    August 1, 2014

    Chief Paul Cook
    President, Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police

    Dear Chief Cook,

    On behalf of the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC), I would like to congratulate the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) for its updated version of the LEARN Guideline for Police Record Checks with a clearer presumption against disclosure of non-conviction records.

  7. Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Christian Horizons

    On May 14, 2010, Ontario’s Divisional Court issued a decision on a case called Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Christian Horizons. The Divisional Court’s ruling was on the appeal of a 2008 decision made by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. In that decision, the Tribunal found that Christian Horizons infringed the rights of an employee who was in a same sex relationship.
  8. Commission statement concerning issues raised by complaints against Maclean's Magazine

    April 9, 2008

    In a recent decision, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) decided not to proceed with complaints filed against Maclean’s magazine related to an article “The future belongs to Islam”. The complainants alleged that the content of the magazine and Maclean’s refusal to provide space for a rebuttal violated their human rights.

Pages