Search

Search results

1. Conclusion

   From: Human rights commissions and economic and social rights

   Adding social condition to human rights legislation may be one way to ensure greater protection for social and economic rights in Canada. However, the Quebec experience has shown that social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination has its limits and is not a panacea for all aspects of socio-economic inequality in Canadian society. Other measures are needed as well. The Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel has recommended the addition of social condition to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

2. An introduction to the intersectional approach

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

   A human rights complaint or an equality rights case that cites multiple grounds of discrimination can be approached in one of several different ways. Depending on the approach that is selected, the analysis of the claim will differ and it is likely that the outcome will also be affected.

3. 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.

4. The move towards an intersectional approach

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

   Multiple grounds in equality and human rights jurisprudence

   Some courts and tribunals have started to acknowledge the need to make special provision for discrimination based on multiple grounds and to recognize the social, economic and historical context in which it takes place. However, despite these advancements, the courts’ understanding of a proper intersectional approach is still in its infancy. What follows is a discussion of recent cases in which a move towards a multiple grounds or intersectional analysis is evidenced in either a majority or dissenting opinion.

5. 3. The intersection of age with other grounds of discrimination

   From: Policy on discrimination against older people because of age

   The experience of age discrimination may differ based on other components of a person’s identity. For example, certain groups of older persons may experience unique barriers as a result of the intersection of age with gender, disability, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, culture and language. Please see Time for Action for a more detailed discussion of “age and intersectionality” and the particular barriers faced by certain groups.

6. 5. Employment

   From: Policy on discrimination against older people because of age

   Assumptions and stereotypes about older workers are unfortunately all too prevalent in our workplaces. Older workers are often unfairly perceived as less productive, less committed to their jobs, not dynamic or innovative, unreceptive to change, unable to be trained or costly to the organization due to health problems and higher salaries. These ideas about older workers are simply myths that are not borne out by evidence. In fact, there is significant evidence that older workers:

7. Elementary and secondary education

   From: The opportunity to succeed: Achieving barrier-free education for students with disabilities

   Overview

8. I. Introduction

   From: The Ontario Safe Schools Act: School discipline and discrimination

   The main purpose of this report is to examine whether the Ontario Safe Schools Act and Regulations and the school board policies on discipline, known by some as “zero tolerance” policies, are having a disproportionate impact on racial minority students and students with disabilities. Since September 2001, when the Act came into effect, school boards around the province have been drafting and implementing policies and procedures to comply with the Act.

9. II. Background

   From: The Ontario Safe Schools Act: School discipline and discrimination

   In Ontario, the first serious steps towards taking a zero tolerance approach to discipline matters in schools began in the mid-1990s. In late 1993, the Scarborough Board of Education adopted a Safe Schools Policy on Violence and Weapons, which appears to have been the first official zero tolerance policy in the province.

10. IV. School Boards: The Toronto District School Board

    From: The Ontario Safe Schools Act: School discipline and discrimination

    School boards in Ontario are under a legal obligation to adopt and revise policies, guidelines and procedures in accordance with the Safe Schools Act and Regulations and the Ontario Schools Code of Conduct.^[69] The Toronto District School Board (TDSB), for example, has adopted or revised, among other things, a Code of Conduct and an Appropriate Dress Policy,

Pages