Archive

July 2013 - While the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) recognizes the significance of all of the barriers newcomers potentially face when trying to access the job market, this policy will focus on “Canadian experience” as an employment or accreditation requirement, and as a practice that raises human rights concerns. The OHRC’s position is that a strict requirement for “Canadian experience” is prima facie discrimination (discrimination on its face) and can only be used in very 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 this policy sets out.

Toronto – The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) today released a report on its inquiry into rental housing licensing in the City of Waterloo. The report outlines what the OHRC heard, identifies the City’s response to some concerns, gives recommendations for advancing human rights, and refers to two parts of the bylaw where human rights issues remain.

As noted in the report, the OHRC conducted surveys as part of this inquiry. After the OHRC published its surveys, the City of Waterloo raised a concern that landlord surveys stated that the rental housing licensing bylaw imposes a 150m separation distance on lodging houses. The City clarified that the separation distance does not apply to all lodging houses in the city, and also that the City’s zoning bylaw (and not the rental housing licensing bylaw) imposes separation distances.

5.1 Per-person floor area requirements The OHRC recommends that the City immediately eliminate per-person floor area requirements from its bylaw. 5.2 Minimum separation distances There is a general trend towards removing MSDs from bylaws and official plans, and more than one bylaw has faced a legal challenge because it includes MSDs.[77] In communications with the OHRC, the City stated:

During the inquiry, the OHRC heard concerns from tenants, landlords and other individuals about:

In discussions with the City starting in late 2010, the OHRC raised a number of concerns about whether the bylaw was targeted at, or would have a negative impact on, people protected by the Code. Although the City made some changes, when it passed the bylaw, some concerns remained unaddressed. The OHRC decided to inquire further.

The OHRC’s inquiry looked into whether anyone may have experienced Code-based discrimination as a result of Waterloo’s rental housing licensing regime.

The City of Waterloo’s rental housing licensing bylaw came into effect on April 1, 2012. The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) was concerned that the licensing regime might discriminate against groups protected under the Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code) and cause them to lose their current housing, or to have a harder time finding housing in future. As a result, the OHRC initiated an inquiry to learn more.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission (“the OHRC”) understands that, on October 31, 2012, City Council approved zoning by-law amendment number Z-8063, permitting a methadone clinic to be established under certain conditions at 425 Wharncliffe Road. The OHRC further understands that, while Council approved this amendment, it applied a holding provision which required a public site plan meeting be held.

Ontario Human Rights Commission 2000-2001 Actual year-end financial position ($'000)   2000-01 Printed Estimates  Year-End Budget Adjustments Revised Budget Mar. 31, 2001

Decisions 

Table 1: New Complaints Filed by Social Area and Grounds Cited Total Number of Complaints Filed: 1,775 Accommodation 34 16 3

Business/Legal

    Publications Ontario Web Site Plain Language Documents    

Office of the Commissioner 

List of Commissioners 

The Commission has presented its accountability framework in the last three annual reports. The framework establishes targets for the organization’s performance in the coming year and reports on achievements against previously established targets.

Inquiry and intake services The Inquiry and Intake Service Unit is the first point of contact for members of the public who need information on filing a human rights complaint. Callers receive basic information on the Commission, how to file a complaint and other information about the human rights process. 

During the 2000-2001 fiscal year, the Legal Services Branch received the follow­ing: 11 Board of Inquiry decisions, 12 judicial review decisions, 9 appeal deci­sions and six Supreme Court of Canada decisions (five applications for leave to appeal dismissed; one successful intervention). 

The past year’s results show that the Commission is now better positioned than ever before to meet the challenges of its mandate: it has a current caseload, an all-time high in public education activities and some recent high profile policy initiatives have received very favourable public reaction.  Both its community partners and government have acknowledged and recognized the progress that the Commission has made in its work.

Policy Development  In keeping with its mandate to promote greater understanding of human rights and encourage research to eliminate discriminatory practices, the Commission undertook a number of policy development initiatives in 2000-2001. The Commission held public meetings and issued discussion papers to the public and media on emerging human rights policy areas. New policies were introduced and several policies were updated.  The Commission also embarked on a major public education campaign.

I am pleased to report on the work of the Ontario Human Rights Commission for the fiscal year 2000 - 2001. This year, for the fifth year in a row, the Commission closed more cases (1,941) than it opened (1,775). Through the use of effective caseload management includ­ing voluntary mediation, the average age of cases is now 10.4 months; the median age is seven months.

2001-2002 Actual Year-End financial Position ($’000)           2001-02 Year-End Variance  

Decisions Age Sinclair and Newby v. Morris A. Hunter Investments Ltd. et al. Breach of Settlement Seguin v. Ininew Friendship Centre et al. Colour Fuller v. Daoud and Desquilbet Seguin v. Ininew Friendship Centre et al. Sinclair and Newby v. Morris A. Hunter Investments Ltd. et al. Ethnic Origin Fuller v. Daoud and Desquilbet