A few months ago, I visited Thunder Bay and had the opportunity to speak with members of the Indigenous community. Community members told me about their concerns related to policing and child welfare, trafficking of Indigenous women and girls, and everyday racism in almost every facet of their lives including employment, housing, healthcare and retail. Most strikingly, people talked about being “garbaged” – literally having garbage thrown at them while walking down the street, all because of their Indigenous ancestry. I brought these concerns to the leaders that I met later in the day, including the Mayor and police.
When child welfare authorities remove children from their caregivers because of concerns about abuse or neglect, it can be traumatic and tragic for everyone involved – children, their families and even their communities. Being admitted into care comes with far-reaching consequences that can have a negative impact on children’s future ability to thrive. It is an unfortunate reality that some children need to be placed in care to keep them safe. But too often, for First Nations, Métis, Inuit, Black and other racialized families, being involved with the child welfare system and having a child removed is fraught with concerns that the system is not meeting their or their children’s needs, is harmful, and may be discriminatory.
From: Competing Human Rights
Employer distributing Bibles and religious advice
Here is an example of a Code right (creed) versus a Charter right (freedom of religion and expression).
encourages them to attend church meetings, gives each a Bible as a gift for Christmas and asks them if they share his opinions on a variety of matters. Employees have made it clear that they do not welcome or appreciate his comments and conduct in their workplace and that they plan to file a claim under the Ontario Human Rights Code. This could be argued as a competing rights situation because:
It is discrimination if you fire, demote or lay off an employee because she is or may become pregnant or she is away on maternity leave or disability leave related to pregnancy. Employers have a duty to accommodate a pregnant woman unless it would cause undue hardship. This may include changing her job duties temporarily or providing time off work.English
Employers have a duty to accommodate an employee’s creed to the point of undue hardship, including by providing time off for religious holidays.English
Q&A on the duty to accommodate
March 18, 2014 at 11:00 am
Accommodation rights and responsibilities under the Ontario Human Rights Code.English
OHRC and HRPA webinar on preventing discrimination based on creed
April 13, 2016 at 12:00 pm
OHRC and HRPA webinar on preventing discrimination based on creed for HR professionals.English
I am writing today to encourage you to adopt a broad human rights interpretation of the National Inquiry’s Terms of Reference and to offer our support as you pursue your important mandate.
This report summarizes key points of the discussion and recommendations arising from the three-day Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights Dialogue. It features the collective wisdom of Indigenous Elders, knowledge keepers, academics, political and government leaders, advocates, lawyers, policy makers and activists. Representatives of the OHRC, Human Rights Legal Support Centre, Social Justice Tribunals of Ontario, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission also took part.