Language selector

Site

Search results

  1. 4. Organizational responsibility

    From: Policy on Removing the “Canadian experience” barrier

    Organizations and institutions have a responsibility to be aware of whether their practices, policies and programs have a negative impact or result in systemic discrimination against people or groups protected by the Code. It is not acceptable from a human rights perspective to choose to remain unaware of the potential existence of discrimination or harassment, to ignore or to fail to act to address human rights matters, whether or not a complaint has been made.

  2. 4. Systemic faithism

    From: Human rights and creed research and consultation report

    Systemic faithism refers to the ways that cultural and societal norms, systems, structures and institutions directly or indirectly, consciously or unwittingly,[128] promote, sustain or entrench differential (dis)advantage for individuals and groups based on their faith (understood broadly to include religious and non-religious belief systems). Systemic faithism can adversely affect both religious and non-religious persons, depending on the context, as discussed in the examples below.

  3. 4. The OHRC’s 2008-2012 priorities, initiatives and impacts

    From: Ontario Human Rights Commission Submission regarding Section 57 three-year statutory review of the Ontario Human Rights System

    In November 2008, following public town hall meetings with individuals and groups across the province, the OHRC finalized strategic and business plans to guide its work under its new mandate for the following three years. Our aim is to educate, empower and mobilize partners in communities across the province to raise awareness, help identify concerns and implement solutions.

  4. 4. What are competing rights?

    From: Policy on competing human rights

    In general, competing human rights involve situations where parties to a dispute claim that the enjoyment of an individual or group’s human rights and freedoms, as protected by law, would interfere with another’s rights and freedoms. This complicates the normal approach to resolving a human rights dispute where only one side claims a human rights violation. In some cases, only one party is making a human rights claim, but the claim conflicts with the legal entitlements of another party or parties.

  5. 5. Collecting data in a Code-consistent way

    From: Count me in! Collecting human rights-based data

    Collecting information about characteristics based on Code and non-Code grounds may lead to fears that the information might be used to treat a person or group in a discriminatory way, give unmerited preference to a particular group that does face historical discrimination, or lead to individuals being identified or “outed.” To address such fears, the following guidelines are strongly recommended to make sure that data involving Code and non-Code grounds is collected and used in a legitimate and appropriate way:

  6. 5. Context for the report findings

    From: OHRC Response to the Race Data and Traffic Stops in Ottawa Report

    The results from the OPS data collection project are situated within a context of historical police/community relations with racialized and Indigenous peoples in Ottawa and Canada generally. Many Supreme Court of Canada decisions and research studies show that systemic discrimination in policing is a reality. The York University researchers’ findings are similar to the results of other research conducted on police bias.

Pages