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:
March 10, 2011 - Thank you for your two recent presentations held January 28 and February 25, 2011 to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC), members of the Mental Health Police Record Checks Coalition (PRCC) and other organizations where you gave an overview of the OACP’s Draft Guideline for Police Record Checks.
May 14, 2010 - The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) supports the regulation of retirement homes across the province. However, we ask the Committee to consider specific recommendations to amend the Bill to enhance the ability of retirement homes providers to meet their obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code)
The Ontario Human Rights Commission (the OHRC) welcomes the opportunity to provide input into the independent mandatory review of the Accessibility for Ontarian’s with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA). The OHRC has a long history of engaging its broad mandate promoting and protecting the rights of persons with disabilities, including providing advice to government dating back to 1998 on the development of successive pieces accessibility legislation as well as more recent submissions on standards being developed under the AODA.
June 4, 2009 - The Ontario Human Rights Commission was concerned to learn this past week about broad police record checks being conducted on some jury pools. While this matter raises important issues around disclosure, impartiality, judicial fairness, privacy, and informed consent, there are also human rights implications for individuals with mental health disabilities under Ontario’s Human Rights Code.
May 1, 2009 - I have watched with great interest – and hope – the events unfolding at Keswick High School in the past week. It was so refreshing to see 400 students rising together to tell their peers, their school, and their community, that racism and bullying are not welcome.
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.
With the recent passage of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), 2005, accessibility issues are now governed by complementary aspects of the Ontario Human Rights Code, the AODA, the Ontario Building Code and, in the case of existing buildings, the Ontario Fire 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:
October 2005 - The Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board (the “Board’) agrees that, when teachers or school administrators are alleged to have made inappropriate remark(s) toward a student regarding that student's race, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, creed, or disability, or other grounds as protected by the Ontario Human Rights Code , or to have purposefully failed to appropriately accommodate the needs of disabled students, the Board shall investigate the allegations and implement measures, where appropriate, to ensure accountability. Such measures shall include, in appropriate circumstances, discipline up to and including termination.