Archive

The ultimate responsibility for maintaining an environment free from sexual harassment rests with employers, housing providers, educators and other responsible parties covered by the Code. From a human rights perspective, it is not acceptable to choose to stay unaware of sexual harassment, whether or not a human rights claim has been made.[170]

Under the Code, the claimant – or the person making a claim – has the onus of proving an allegation of sexual harassment. A claimant must show a human rights tribunal that, on a "balance of probabilities," there appears to be a contravention of the Code. The burden of proof for showing harassment under the Code is not as strong as the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required for establishing guilt in criminal cases.

When a person believes that she or he has been sexually harassed, she or he should try, where possible, to resolve the problem through any internal policies or resolution mechanisms the organization may have in place.

Education, in its broadest sense, is a “service” under the Code.[127] Section 1 of the Code guarantees the right to equal treatment in services, without discrimination on the basis of sex. Sexual harassment, as a form of sex discrimination, is therefore prohibited in education settings.[128]

Section 7(1) of the Code states that every person who occupies housing has a right to freedom from sexual harassment by their landlord, an agent of their landlord, or someone who lives in the same building.

While unequal power relationships exist in many sectors of society, they tend to appear the most in the workplace, where hierarchies are common. Both women and men may experience sexual harassment in employment, but women tend to be more vulnerable to harassment by men, because relative to men, more women hold lower-paying, lower-authority and lower-status jobs. At the same time, even women in positions of authority are not free from sexual harassment or inappropriate gender-related behaviour.[100]

2.1 Defining sexual harassment Section 10 of the Code defines harassment as “engaging in a course of vexatious[8] comment or conduct that is known or ought to be known to be unwelcome.” Using this definition, more than one event must take place for there to be a violation of the Code.[9] However, depending on the circumstances, one incident could be significant or substantial enough to be sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment is a form of discrimination based on sex.[1] The Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code) prohibits all forms of discrimination based on sex, and includes provisions that focus on sexual harassment. The Code offers this protection in five “social” areas: services, goods and facilities; occupancy of accommodation (housing); contracts; employment; and membership in vocational associations such as trade unions.

On August 13th, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario released its decision on a human rights application, R.C. v. District School Board of Niagara.

Christian Horizons and the Ontario Human Rights Commission are pleased to announce a partnership initiative to enhance diversity within the CH workforce, strengthening CH's mission to serve people living with developmental disabilities. As part of the initiative, CH will be welcoming applications for future vacancies in support worker and program manager positions from all persons regardless of creed.

September 2013 - The OHRC is currently updating its 1996 Policy on creed. The goal is to clarify the OHRC’s interpretation of human rights based on creed under the Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code) and advance human rights understanding and good practice in this area. The update, which began in 2011, will take two to three years to finish. It will involve extensive research and consultation, and will draw on lessons learned from the OHRC’s recent work on the Policy on competing human rights.

Toronto –The Ontario Human Rights Commission’s (OHRC) new Policy on removing the “Canadian experience” barrier was launched today by Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall in partnership with KPMG.

International human rights law recognizes the interrelationship between economic status, marginalization, social exclusion and racism.

Section 30 of the Ontario Human Rights Code authorizes the OHRC to prepare, approve and publish human rights policies to provide guidance on interpreting provisions of the Code.

The OHRC’s position is that a strict requirement for “Canadian experience” is discriminatory on its face and can only be used in limited circumstances. The onus will be on employers and regulatory bodies to show that a requirement for prior work experience in Canada is a bona fide requirement, based on the legal test set out in this policy. Employment and accreditation requirements should be clear, reasonable, genuine and directly related to performing the job.

Organizations and institutions have a responsibility to be aware of whether their practices, policies and programs have a negative impact or result in systemic discrimination against people or groups protected by the Code. It is not acceptable from a human rights perspective to choose to remain unaware of the potential existence of discrimination or harassment, to ignore or to fail to act to address human rights matters, whether or not a complaint has been made.

There is no common understanding of the skills employers or regulatory bodies are trying to assess when they impose a requirement that applicants have Canadian experience. This can be extremely frustrating for newcomers who may be qualified for a position or professional accreditation, but who have not yet worked in Canada, and are not given a chance to prove their qualifications.

Many immigrants who have chosen Canada as their home have settled in Ontario. Statistics Canada reports that in Toronto, “almost half of the population (47.3%) is foreign born, the highest share for any major city in the developed world, including New York, Miami and Sydney.”[18]

Over the past several months, City staff have been in contact with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) as the City considers its options for licencing rental housing in Guelph. We are pleased to see that some of this discussion is reflected in references to human rights in the Rental Housing Licensing Cost-Benefit Analysis report.

July 2013 - When an employer requires people applying for jobs to have “Canadian experience,” or where a regulatory body requires “Canadian experience” before someone can get accredited, they may create barriers for newcomers to Canada. Requiring “Canadian experience” could violate the Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code), which protects people from discrimination based on grounds such as race, ancestry, colour, place of origin and ethnic origin.

1. What do you mean by a “Canadian experience” requirement?

July 2013 - In October 2012, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) hosted an online survey to learn more about the experiences of both job seekers and employers in dealing with requirements for Canadian experience. The survey was not about statistics – it was about giving people an opportunity to talk about the barriers they faced, and in the case of employers, the reasons for keeping or removing requirements for Canadian experience. We included many of stories and comments we heard in our new Policy on removing the “Canadian experience” barrier. The following sections highlight some of the recurring themes we heard, and some of the more poignant stories of people facing discrimination because they did not have Canadian experience.

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.

June 2013 - I am pleased to provide you with the Commission’s Annual Report of its activities from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013.

National Aboriginal Day is an opportunity for all Canadians to celebrate the unique culture and contributions of First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples in Canada.