Language selector

Site

Search results

  1. Re: Sexualized and gender-specific dress codes in restaurants

    July 8, 2016 - In pursuit of our public interest mandate, section 31 of the Code authorizes the OHRC to request production of documents and gather other information as part of an inquiry. Pursuant to section 31, we are writing to request that you review employee dress codes in your Ontario operations, remove any discriminatory requirements, and provide documentation showing that you have done this.

  2. Submission of the OHRC to the MGCS regarding name and sex designation change information

    May 23, 2016 - The OHRC believes that MGCS’ current system for storing and sharing information relating to name and sex designation changes discriminates against trans people in violation of Ontario’s Human Rights Code, insofar as it fails to protect privacy and confidentiality relating to transgender status and transition history. Disclosing information of such a sensitive nature not only harms dignity, but also can expose people to significant barriers, disadvantage, and even health and safety risks.

  3. Connecting with communities

    From: Annual Report 2015 - 2016: Reconnect. Renew. Results.

    Outreach, education across Ontario

    In 2015-16, the OHRC continued to provide training with organizations and communities across Ontario. OHRC staff spoke at 69 public education sessions, reaching over 5,000 people. These face-to-face connections are an important part of maintaining an ongoing dialogue with partners and organizations, and with people who simply want to know more about their rights.

  4. Support for women and families

    From: Annual Report 2015 - 2016: Reconnect. Renew. Results.

    End sexualized workplace dress codes that discriminate

    Many restaurants and bars still require women to dress in high heels, tight dresses, low-cut tops and short skirts. Human rights decisions have found these policies and practices to be discriminatory. They make employees more vulnerable to sexual harassment, contribute to discriminatory work environments and exclude people based on sex, gender identity or expression and creed.

  5. Refocusing, redefining creed

    From: Annual Report 2015 - 2016: Reconnect. Renew. Results.

    Religious discrimination persists

    Many Canadians believe that religious discrimination is no longer a problem in contemporary society. They point to “multiculturalism,” recent efforts to promote reconciliation with First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples, along with Canadians’ eagerness to resettle Syrian refugees, as proof that we have learned the lessons at the core of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

  6. A message from Chief Commissioner Renu Mandhane

    From: Annual Report 2015 - 2016: Reconnect. Renew. Results.

    Reconnect. Renew. Results.

    2015-16 has been a time of transition for the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) – and for me personally, as I took on the role of Chief Commissioner in November. As is my nature, I adopted the “dive right in” approach and, just over six months into my term, the OHRC is well-positioned to embark on a bold new approach that emphasizes community trust, human rights accountability, and measurable impact.

  7. 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.

Pages