Archive

Education is a “service” under the Code Section 1 of the Code guarantees the right to equal treatment in services, without discrimination on the ground of disability. Education, in its broadest sense, is a “service” within the meaning of the Code.[3] The scope of “educational services” will include the mastery of knowledge, academic standards, evaluation and accreditation.

Accommodation is a means of preventing and removing barriers that impede students with disabilities from participating fully in the educational environment in a way that is responsive to their own unique circumstances. The principle of accommodation involves three factors: dignity, individualization and inclusion.[9]

Preventing bullying and harassment Part of an educational institution’s duty to maintain a safe learning environment for students includes addressing bullying and harassing behaviour. Students who are being harassed are entitled to the Code’s protection where the harassment creates a poisoned educational environment.

Basic principles The principles of respect for dignity, individualization, inclusion and full participation apply both to the substance of an accommodation and to the accommodation process. The manner in which an accommodation is provided and the methods by which it is implemented are subject to human rights standards.

When requesting accommodation from an education provider, students (and/or their parent(s)/guardian(s)) have a responsibility to provide sufficient information about their disability-related needs to facilitate the accommodation. Educational services at the lower levels of education are broad and may include cultivating aspects of the student’s development beyond those that are strictly academic.

Basic principles It is the OHRC’s position that the duty to accommodate requires that the most appropriate accommodation be determined and then undertaken, short of undue hardship. The most appropriate accommodation is one that most respects the dignity of the student with a disability, meets individual needs, best promotes inclusion and full participation, and maximizes confidentiality.

Under the Code, every student with a disability is entitled to accommodation up to the point of undue hardship. The Code sets out only three elements that may be considered in assessing whether an accommodation would cause undue hardship:

Often, a number of parties might be involved in the accommodation process rendering it quite complex. Everyone should co-operatively engage in the process, share information and avail themselves of potential accommodation solutions. It is in everyone’s best interests that congenial and respectful relationships be maintained throughout the accommodation process. The student with a disability (or his or her parent/guardian) has a responsibility to:

Please visit www.ontario.ca/humanrights for more information on the human rights system in Ontario. The Human Rights System can also be accessed by telephone at: Local: 416 326-9511 Toll Free: 1-800-387-9080 TTY (Local): 416-326 0603 TTY (Toll Free) 1-800-308-5561

At a number of the sites visited, the results of the audit confirmed that there are restaurant facilities in operation in Ontario that do not meet even the most basic accessibility requirements of the current Building Code, nor the provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code. In some cases, facilities are completely inaccessible while at other locations, persons with disabilities would face significant barriers, particularly in accessing washrooms.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss and reflect on the emerging role of human rights commissions in the 21st century. The new millennium finds human rights commissions increasingly under pressure to respond to government restructuring, new grounds or mandates, globalisation and the growing role and expectations of civil society. These developments have implications for human rights generally and for human rights commissions in particular.

Adding social condition to human rights legislation may be one way to ensure greater protection for social and economic rights in Canada. However, the Quebec experience has shown that social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination has its limits and is not a panacea for all aspects of socio-economic inequality in Canadian society. Other measures are needed as well. The Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel has recommended the addition of social condition to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

As discussed above, the intersectional approach is the preferred one for complaints and cases that cite multiple grounds. Nevertheless, there are other ways in which multiple grounds matters are being handled by human rights bodies, courts and international bodies such as the United Nations (the “UN”). In some instances, the grounds are looked at sequentially to see whether discrimination can be made out on the basis of each one in turn.

An intersectional analysis based upon a two-pronged approach has been suggested by Professors Aylward, Pothier, and Iyer. It requires a shift from a single ground perspective to an analysis based on the assumption that an individual’s experiences are based on multiple identities that can be linked to more than one ground of discrimination. The second component of the two-pronged model requires the analysis to proceed to consider contextual factors, based on the facts of the case.

This paper has explored the need for a more holistic understanding of how people experience discrimination. The Commission has already started applying an intersectional approach to some of the complaints that have come before it. In addition, an intersectional analysis has been added as one of the lenses through which policy work is conducted. An understanding of discrimination as largely a product of the social construction of identity, based on social, historical, political and cultural factors, is informing the Commission’s work in all areas.

Please visit www.ontario.ca/humanrights for more information on the human rights system in Ontario. The Human Rights System can also be accessed by telephone at: Local: 416-326-9511 Toll Free: 1-800-387-9080 TTY (Local): 416-326 0603 TTY (Toll Free) 1-800-308-5561

The best defence against human rights claims is to be fully informed and aware of the responsibilities and protections included in the Code. Organizations can achieve this by developing disability accommodation policy and procedures as well as by conducting an accessibility review.

Session 1 - Trends and Current Issues for Human Rights Commissions Moderator: Pearl Eliadis Pearl Eliadis introduced the topic by identifying the following major themes:

From our research so far, we heard that many people don’t know they have the right to be free from discrimination in rental housing, employment and services because of a mental health disability or addiction. Many don’t know how to ask for help or how they can enforce their rights.

People with mental health disabilities or addictions often face barriers to finding and keeping jobs. People with serious mental health disabilities tend to have very high rates of unemployment.

The Code protects people in the social area of goods, services and facilities. Services are broadly defined, but include health care (including mental health care), the criminal justice and the court system (for example police), government services (including social assistance), education, child welfare, insurance, shops and restaurants. Many issues may exist for people with mental health disabilities and addictions when they seek services.

In 2007, the OHRC conducted a consultation on discrimination in rental housing. We heard about the concerns that many people with mental health and addiction issues face in renting and keeping housing. We reported on these concerns in Right at home: Report on the consultation on human rights and rental housing in Ontario, and developed our Policy on human rights and rental housing.

Intersectionality:

The OHRC welcomes your feedback on the areas of concern we identify in this paper. There are many ways to get involved in the consultation: 1. Written submissions If you want to write a submission to the OHRC, please use the questions above to guide your response and feel free to comment on any of the information provided in this paper. You can mail, fax or e-mail your written comments to us at:

If you have any questions about the consultation process, contact the OHRC by telephone at: 416-314-4526 or 1-800-387-9080 Follow the instructions to speak to staff about public education. TTY: 416-326-0603 or 1-800-308-5561