Language selector

Site

Search results

  1. Other approaches to multiple grounds

    From: An intersectional approach to discrimination: Addressing multiple grounds in human rights claims

    As discussed above, the intersectional approach is the preferred one for complaints and cases that cite multiple grounds. Nevertheless, there are other ways in which multiple grounds matters are being handled by human rights bodies, courts and international bodies such as the United Nations (the “UN”). In some instances, the grounds are looked at sequentially to see whether discrimination can be made out on the basis of each one in turn.

  2. Section III: The balancing tools

    From: Balancing conflicting rights: Towards an analytical framework

    This section of the paper surveys the balancing tools found in the Code and relevant case law. Documents such as Commission briefing notes and Policy Papers provide invaluable commentary on these tools and their insights are woven into the following discussion. The goal of this section is to identify the resources for balancing conflicting rights that will be utilized in the scenarios discussed in Section IV.

  3. Section IV: Using the tools

    From: Balancing conflicting rights: Towards an analytical framework

    A number of conflicting rights scenarios and their potential resolutions have been presented throughout this paper in order to illustrate specific balancing tools. This section of the paper will utilize each of the tools noted above by working through one timely example of conflicting rights: same-sex marriage and civil marriage commissioners. This example has been chosen not only for its currency, but also because it encompasses both the service and employment contexts.

  4. The Commission and the Human Rights Code

    From: Annual report 2006-2007

    The Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) is an independent, arm's length agency of the provincial government. Canada’s oldest commission, it was established in 1961 to protect, promote, and advance human rights, as set out in Ontario’s Human Rights Code (the “Code”). The Commission has broad functions and powers under the Code and acts independently on behalf of the public interest.

  5. III. Family status and other Code grounds

    From: The cost of caring: Report on the consultation on discrimination on the basis of family status

    Each individual’s experience of his or her family status is profoundly influenced by other aspects of their identify, such as gender, sexual orientation, age, race, marital status, or disability: this was a major theme of the submissions the Commission received. For example, the experience of an aging parent of a child with a disability will differ from that of an Aboriginal single mother in search of housing. A heterosexual married mother seeking career advancement will experience different barriers than a lesbian couple dealing with their children’s schooling.

  6. IV. Defining family status

    From: The cost of caring: Report on the consultation on discrimination on the basis of family status

    1. The Current Code Definition

    The Code includes two grounds that provide protections for persons in relationships: marital status and family status. “Marital status” is defined in section 10 of the Code as “the status of being married, single, widowed, divorced or separated and includes the status of living with a person in a conjugal relationship outside marriage”, including both same-sex and opposite sex relationships. “Family status” is defined as “the status of being in a parent and child relationship.”

Pages