Goods, services and facilities
You have the right to be free from discrimination when you receive goods or services, or use facilities. For example, this right applies to:
- stores, restaurants and bars
- hospitals and health services
- schools, universities and colleges
- public places, amenities and utilities such as recreation centres, public washrooms, malls and parks
- services and programs provided by municipal and provincial governments, including social assistance and benefits, and public transit
- services provided by insurance companies
- classified advertisement space in a newspaper.
Relevant policies and guides:
Factum of the proposed intervenor Ontario Human Rights Commission
August 29, 2008 - The Ontario Divisional Court released a decision earlier this month upholding a discrimination ruling of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in a case argued by the Commission. The Court’s decision in Lane v. ADGA Group Consultants Inc. of Ottawa warrants all our attention because it reaffirms that employees with mental health disabilities have a right to accommodation of their needs under Ontario’s Human Rights Code.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Ontario Ministry of Education have finalized a settlement of a human rights complaint initiated by the Commission against the Ministry and the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) in July 2005. A settlement was reached separately with the TDSB in November 2005.
WHEREAS on July 7, 2005, the OHRC initiated a complaint, number GKEA-6DUH6W, pursuant to subsection 32(2) of the Human Rights Code in the public interest and on behalf of racialized students and students with disabilities alleging that the application of the safe schools provisions of the Education Act and the Ministry’s and school boards’ policies on discipline are having a disproportionate impact on racial minority students and students with disabilities. NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree to settle these matters as follows:
November 28, 1997 - In accordance with PART IV, s.36 of the Ontario Insurance Commission’s (“the OIC”) Rules of Practice and Procedure for Commissioner, Superintendent and Advisory Board Hearings, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“the Commission”) submits this letter of comment with respect to the public hearing to be held on an application filed by (the insurer) for an automobile insurance classification system and automobile insurance rates.
Factum of the interveners the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission and the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
October 14, 1999 - Insurance practices routinely make distinctions based on, among other things, gender, age, marital status and disability. While many of these distinctions are based on valid business practices, others raise questions and concerns. These concerns relate to the existence of non-discriminatory alternatives to current practices and about respect for human rights.
August 22, 2012 - We understand that the city passed by law number Z-1-122090 regulating methadone clinics in March 2012. As noted in our letter of February 24, 2012, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“the OHRC”) has concerns that this type of regulation may discriminate against people with addictions - who are protected by the Ontario Human Rights Code (“the Code”).
The central issue in this appeal is the apparent conflict between the intersecting religious and equality rights of a witness and the fair trial rights of the accused in the context of a criminal proceeding. The OHRC’s submissions set out a process, based in existing case law, to analyze and reconcile potentially competing rights. The proposed process can apply, with appropriate modifications, to any competing rights claims whether they arise under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter), human rights legislation, the common law or otherwise.
July 2, 2013 - The Commission has a number of significant human rights and Charter concerns with the current practice of carding. It has also heard similar concerns from community and advocacy groups.