I am writing today to outline the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s concerns regarding the University of Toronto’s proposed University-Mandated Leave of Absence Policy which is being considered by the University Affairs Board tomorrow (January 30, 2018). The OHRC is concerned that the treatment of students contemplated in the Policy may result in discrimination on the basis of mental health disability contrary to the Human Rights Code.
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 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.
May 2012 - What follows is a discussion of significant legal decisions dealing with religious and creed rights in Canada. The focus is on decisions made since the Commission issued its 1996 Policy on Creed and the Accommodation of religious observances. It does not review every decision, but those that may be important from a human rights perspective. In addition to a description of the case law, trends and areas where it is anticipated the case law will continue to evolve or be clarified are identified. The review will form the basis for further research and dialogue concerning the law in Canada as it relates to this significant area of 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”).
Discriminatory opposition to affordable housing for groups protected under the Code (“Not-in-my-backyard” syndrome or “NIMBYism”) makes it much harder to develop affordable social and supportive housing for people with mental health issues or addictions.
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.
November 3, 2014 - Dear Dr. Mukherjee, Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to the important discussion regarding the job specification and expectations for Toronto’s next Chief of Police.
February 6, 2015 - Your Worship, I was pleased to learn that on January 20th at a special session, councilors did not pass an interim control bylaw to prohibit the opening of methadone clinics in the Town of Greater Napanee.
February 19, 2015 - Dear Dr. Leet, The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) has reviewed the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario’s (CPSO) new draft policy, Professional Obligations and Human Rights.