Archive

Business/Legal African Canadian Legal Clinic AGF Management Limited

 Plain Language Documents Date Accommodation for Persons With Disabilities 1/95 AIDS and AIDS-Related Illness and the Code:  Know Your Rights 6/90 Breastfeeding Flyer (9/99)

Office of the Chief Commissioner The Office of the Chief Commissioner provides leadership and guides the Commission in carrying out its statutory functions in a way that ensures that, at both the government and community levels, human rights are protected in the province. The Chief Commissioner and Commissioners set policy direction and make decisions about complaints relating to the Code.

List of Commissioners KEITH C. NORTON, Q.C., B.A., LL.B. Chief Commissioner Keith Norton was appointed Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission on July 18, 1996. He is an educator and a lawyer by training, having studied law at Queen’s University in Kingston, as well as having received a diploma in education from the Ontario College of Education. He practiced criminal and family law in Kingston, Ontario, and taught at the secondary and post-secondary levels.

The Commission has presented an accountability framework in the last two annual reports (1997-1998, 1998-1999). The framework is designed to establish targets for the organization’s performance in the coming year as well as report on achievements against previously established targets. The following is a summary of achievements against targets in the 1999-2000 fiscal year.  SERVICE AREA

In 1999-2000, the Commission restructured its corporate services, including the planning and delivery of human resources, information technology and financial and administrative services. The corporate planning function now resides with the Office of the Executive Director. Responsibilities include monitoring and reporting on organizational performance, the implementation of organizational improvement initiatives such as the development of new technology applications in case management and the training of staff.

Inquiries and Intake

In the 1999-2000 fiscal year, the Legal Services Branch handled approximately 147 Boards of Inquiry, 21 Judicial Reviews, and 11 appeals, including two at the Supreme Court of Canada. The following are highlights of some of the significant decisions and cases over the past year that are noteworthy to all those with an interest in human rights advancement.

I am pleased once again to report to the Honourable Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, the Legislative Assembly and the people of Ontario on the work of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. This fiscal year, 1999-2000, is the fourth consecutive year in which the Commission has made major strides forward in improving its level and quality of service to the people of our province.

Introduction In 2000, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) released a policy on gender identity and human rights, taking the position that the ground of sex could be used to protect transgender people from discrimination and harassment. The OHRC also called for an amendment to the Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code) to add “gender identity” as a prohibited ground of discrimination and harassment.

May 2013 - Sexual harassment is a form of discrimination based on sex. The Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code) prohibits all forms of discrimination based on sex, and includes provisions that focus on sexual harassment. The principles set out in this policy will, depending on the circumstances, apply to instances of sexual harassment in any of the social areas covered by the Code. However, to reflect the most important recent developments in the law and in social science research, this policy will focus on the areas of employment, housing and education.

Advocate for the amendment of the Code to extend protection against discrimination on the basis of age to workers over the age of 65.  In other words, the amended Code would still permit employers to impose mandatory retirement at age 65 but, where employers chose not to implement mandatory retirement, workers over the age of 65 would be able to complain of discrimination on the basis of age.

General Age cases tend to be treated differently than other discrimination cases, particularly where the case involves retirement issues. The most noticeable difference from a human rights perspective is the lack of a sense of moral opprobrium linked to age discrimination which, in comparable circumstances would generate outrage if the ground of discrimination were, say, race, sex or disability.

Unlike the situation with other population groups such as women and children, no comprehensive international convention yet exists in relation to the rights of older persons.  However, the UN, including its specialized agencies such as the International Labour Organization (the “ILO”), has turned its attention to issues related to aging.  In 1982, the World Assembly on Ageing adopted the Vienna International Plan of Action on Ageing

In addition to the BFOR defence, discussed above, there are other exceptions in the Code which permit distinctions to be made on the basis of age.  The provision dealing with pensions and related benefits provides that:

Outside the employment context, there are few cases that deal with discrimination against older persons.  In the context of housing, age discrimination cases under human rights legislation tend to deal with issues facing younger people.  However, older persons may experience discrimination on the ground of age or on the potentially related grounds of disability and receipt of public assistance (which would include government pensions).

Recruitment Age is a barrier for individuals when trying to get a job.  This problem is so prevalent that the Supreme Court of Canada has taken judicial notice of it:

The Ontario Code and other human rights legislation permit discrimination on the basis of age where it is a reasonable and bona fide qualification because of the nature of the employment, the so-called bona fide occupational requirement or BFOR defence[84].

Maximum age limits are used by employers to institute mandatory retirement policies at age 65 and these limits have been challenged under the Charter.

The Ontario Code prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of age in all social areas covered by the Code[71].

Increasing numbers of Canadians are caring for aging or ailing family members.  One in five adult women in Canada looks after a person in the home who is chronically ill or disabled, spending on average 28 hours a week.  Currently, 12% of working Canadians are full-time caregivers for loved ones.  This is in part due to an increased emphasis by governments on home care, as opposed to hospital care, in some cases without adequate community services in place.

In March 2000, the Quebec Human Rights Commission held public hearings into mistreatment of the aged in privately-run residences and public long-term hospitals.  The province’s nurses have reported that old people in nursing homes are frequently tied to their beds, intimidated, threatened, physically and sexually abused and ignored.[66]

Employment