Archive

February 18, 2014 - The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) appreciates the opportunity to have participated in the City of Toronto's recent consultation about internet voting. I am pleased that City Council is considering implementing internet and telephone voting for the upcoming 2014 municipal election.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission today called on the Government of Ontario, police services and others to implement the Coroner’s inquest recommendations into the deaths of Reyal Jardine-Douglas, Sylvia Klibingaitis, and Michael Eligon.

February 2014 - People with mental health disabilities are often among the most vulnerable people in Ontario. Many face a unique set of challenges where they live, in workplaces, or in our communities. When people are in crisis they also present a unique set of challenges to police services when considering the use of force. This leads to many concerns from a human rights perspective. It is not the role of the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) to comment on individual cases – we leave it to other experts to resolve these. But it is our role to look at common themes and concerns, and offer ways to move forward.

Special programs 14. (1) A right under Part I is not infringed by the implementation of a special program designed to relieve hardship or economic disadvantage or to assist disadvantaged persons or groups to achieve or attempt to achieve equal opportunity or that is likely to contribute to the elimination of the infringement of rights under Part I. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 14 (1). Application to Commission

Section 30 of the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code) authorizes the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) to prepare, approve and publish human rights policies to provide guidance on interpreting provisions of the Code. The OHRC’s policies and guidelines set standards for how individuals, employers, service providers and policy-makers should act to ensure compliance with the Code.

The information above is intended to help you understand special programs and some of the criteria required for a program to qualify under section 14 of the Code. It is important to know this information before planning and starting a special program. If in doubt, seek legal advice. Below is a checklist to help you. Program rationale

A special program is in line with the values of the Code if it meets the criteria described above. However, some questions and concerns may arise about an organization’s decision to set up a special program. One question that an organization may be asked is, “Will the special program lead to ‘reverse discrimination’ where less qualified people are employed or assisted?” 

A good plan for a special program should be developed through consultation. It should identify a rationale, supporting data, eligibility criteria and an evaluation method. With these elements in place, a program may be less likely to face legal challenges by people who think it is discriminatory under Part 1 of the Code, and the program can be better defended as a “special program” if necessary. Landlords, service providers and other organizations may establish their own special programs. No special or advance approval by the OHRC is needed.

In addition to section 14, some other sections in the Code allow preference to be given to specific groups if certain criteria are met. The special interest organization (section 18), special employment (section 24) and the age 65-and-over provisions (section 15) all lay out special exceptions or defences to the right to be free from discrimination under Part I of the Code. However, these differ from section 14 in the following ways.

Employers, service providers and landlords all have a duty to accommodate the needs of people because of disability, creed, family status and other grounds, to the point of “undue hardship.” In some cases, what may appear to be a special program is in fact part of the duty to accommodate under the Code. These types of initiatives should not be considered special programs. 

In the case of the Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Ontario (Roberts), the Ontario Court of Appeal said that section 14 of the Code has two purposes:

December 2013 - Under the Code, all organizations are prohibited from treating people unfairly because of Code grounds, must remove barriers that cause discrimination, and must stop it when it occurs. Organizations can also choose to develop “special programs” to help disadvantaged groups improve their situation. The Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms both recognize the importance of addressing historical disadvantage by protecting special programs to help marginalized groups. The Supreme Court of Canada has also recognized the need to protect “programs” established by legislation that are designed to address the conditions of a disadvantaged group.

I understand that the issue of a councillor, or other people, breastfeeding at Oshawa City Council chambers may be considered by Council. The Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policy on Discrimination Because of Pregnancy and Breastfeeding contains our interpretation of the provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code relating to pregnancy and breastfeeding.

January 2014 - The survey was open from September 5, 2013 and closed October 16th, 2013. A total of 1,719 persons responded to the survey. Survey questions related primarily to (1) the definition and scope of creed rights under the Code; (2) experiences of discrimination based on creed; and (3) accommodation issues and challenges faced by both accommodation seekers and providers.

While the notion of accommodation has been most developed in the context of disability, it is not new to creed. There are unique accommodation issues specific to creed that arise, in part due to the unique nature of religion and creed as a form and basis of social difference. Creed practices and observances, particularly those connected to religion, for instance, generally include collective dimensions and expressions, which can grate against the grain of widely accepted accommodation norms and principles (e.g.

Court decisions such as “O’Malley”[384] have established that organizations governed by the Code have a duty to accommodate individuals’ creed observances up to the point of undue hardship, regardless of whether established organizational norms, standards, rules or requirements adversely affect creed adherents’ ability to follow the tenets of their creed by design, intent or simply effect.

Extending Code protection to non-religious beliefs and practices could affect employers and other organizations in Ontario in many ways.[374]

Whatever policy definition is eventually adopted, leaving the definition of creed completely open-ended, without any threshold criteria, could impose too onerous a burden on Ontario organizations to determine what constitutes a creed meriting protection under the Code. It would also fail to recognize the few limits and guidelines that have been set out in existing case law.

3.1 Equality focus and purpose of human rights legislation

2. 1. Principles of statutory construction and interpretation Some of the main arguments for not limiting the OHRC policy definition of creed to religion are derived from principles of statutory construction and interpretation. Among those discussed below include:

Systemic faithism refers to the ways that cultural and societal norms, systems, structures and institutions directly or indirectly, consciously or unwittingly,[128] promote, sustain or entrench differential (dis)advantage for individuals and groups based on their faith (understood broadly to include religious and non-religious belief systems). Systemic faithism can adversely affect both religious and non-religious persons, depending on the context, as discussed in the examples below.