Language selector

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:

  1. Accommodating students with disabilities - Roles and responsibilities (fact sheet)

    2000 - The Ontario Human Rights Code guarantees the right to equal treatment in education, without discrimination on the ground of disability, as part of the protection for equal treatment in services. Education providers have a duty to accommodate students with disabilities up to the point of undue hardship. Students with disabilities are not always being provided with appropriate accommodation, and, in some cases, are falling victim to disputes between the various parties responsible for accommodation. The accommodation process is a shared responsibility.

  2. Accommodating students with disabilities - Principles (fact sheet)

    2000 - Once a disability-related need has been identified, or a case of discrimination has been established, education providers have a duty to accommodate the needs of students with disabilities, unless to do so would cause undue hardship. Accommodation is a means of preventing and removing barriers that impede students with disabilities from participating fully in the educational environment. Accommodation involves three principles: dignity, individualization and inclusion.

  3. Submission of the Ontario Human Rights Commission to the Transportation Standards Review Committee regarding the Initial Proposed Transportation Accessibility Standard

    August 2007 - The Commission has grave concerns with significant aspects of the Transportation Standard. In a number of areas, the standard falls far short of human rights standards, not only failing to make progress towards equality for persons with disabilities, but regressing on gains previously made. The Commission urges the Committee to significantly revise the Transportation Standard in order to bring it into alignment with human rights standards and the purposes of the AODA.

  4. Equal access for to education for students with disabilities during strikes (fact sheet)

    2007 - This Fact Sheet highlights the human rights principles that apply to the education of students with disabilities during strikes, walkouts, work stoppages or other job actions involving educational assistants. The information in this backgrounder is intended to set the stage for government, unions, school boards and others to act proactively to ensure equal access to education for students with disabilities during strikes or other work stoppages.

  5. Submission of the Ontario Human Rights Commission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Regarding the draft policy, "Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code"

    February 2008 - The draft policy raises a number of new concerns. The following pages detail the Commission’s concerns and provide suggestions for how to address them. We hope that our comments assist the College in providing greater clarity and ensuring that physicians have correct and sufficient information about their obligations under the Code.
  6. Submission to the Ministry of Community and Social Services regarding the final proposed Accessible Transportation Standard

    March 2009 - The Ontario Human Rights Commission would like to congratulate the members of the Accessible Transportation Standards Development Committee for all their hard work in developing the most recent Proposed Accessible Transportation Standard. This Standard is a vast improvement over the initial standard proposed to government in 2007 and hopefully will become an important driver of change once passed into regulation under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) 2005.
  7. Ontario Human Rights Commission Submission to the Accessible Built Environment Standards Development Committee Regarding The Initial Proposed Accessible Built Environment Standard

    October 2009 - The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) has reviewed the initial proposed Accessible Built Environment Standard prepared by the Accessible Built Environment Standards Development Committee pursuant to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). The OHRC offers the following comment for consideration by the Committee and the Government as the Committee deliberates and prepares to submit to the Government a final proposed Standard following the public consultation period.
  8. Comment of the Ontario Human Rights Commission on Every Door is the Right Door: Towards a 10-Year Mental Health and Addictions Strategy - Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

    August 2009 - The Ontario Human Rights Commission, (the “Commission”) commends the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (“Ministry”) for its work on an improved strategy to meet the needs of Ontarians with mental illnesses and addictions. The Commission is pleased to provide its input on this discussion paper, particularly with respect to the sections on Stigma and Healthy Communities.
  9. Submission of the Ontario Human Rights Commission to the Standing Committee on Social Policy on an Act to regulate retirement homes

    May 2010 - Through its various consultations on age, disability, housing, and mental health, the OHRC has heard about the human rights concerns that have arisen with respect to retirement homes. For example, it has heard about retirement home providers not accommodating older residents' disabilities. It has heard about issues of heterosexism and homophobia, where gay, lesbian or bisexual people's lives were not recognized and their partners not acknowledged, or they were subjected to homophobic treatment by facility staff. Several groups expressed concern regarding the cultural, linguistic, and religious needs of older persons living in care facilities.

Pages