Archive

Abbotsford Community Services. (2010). Cultural Diversity Awards. Retrieved from http://www.abbotsfordcommunityservices.com/Our-Programs/Immigrants-Multicultural/Cultural-Diversity-Awards

In the human rights context, both quantitative data (numbers, for example) and qualitative data (stories, for example) is collected on Code and non-Code grounds. An organization may decide to collect both kinds of data for many reasons. Some organizations may collect data to:

There are many benefits for regularly collecting data using accepted data collection research methods. Some examples are:

There are potential challenges when deciding to collect data based on Code grounds such as race, disability or sexual orientation. Some questions and concerns organizations may encounter, in the employment or service delivery context, include:

Collecting information about characteristics based on Code and non-Code grounds may lead to fears that the information might be used to treat a person or group in a discriminatory way, give unmerited preference to a particular group that does face historical discrimination, or lead to individuals being identified or “outed.” To address such fears, the following guidelines are strongly recommended to make sure that data involving Code and non-Code grounds is collected and used in a legitimate and appropriate way:

If an organization is considering whether to collect data on its own or get help from an external consultant, it will need to have enough information to make an informed decision about how to proceed.

Note: The summaries found in Appendices A to F are largely based on in-depth interviews with representatives from organizations about their data collection experiences. The terminology used here reflects the terminology used by each organization, and may not be consistent with terms the OHRC uses. More detailed summaries for each organization will be included on the OHRC website. As well, other summaries and examples will be added to the website as the project evolves.  

Adequate housing is essential to one’s sense of dignity, safety, inclusion and ability to contribute to the fabric of our neighbourhoods and societies.[3] As the Commission heard in this consultation, without appropriate housing it is often not possible to get and keep employment, to recover from mental illness or other disabilities, to integrate into the community, to escape physical or emotional violence or to keep custody of children.

This section discusses the most significant rental housing issues affecting individual tenants and housing providers. Many of the experiences of discrimination and harassment, tenant screening and accommodation are intrinsically linked to the systemic elements discussed in section 5. For example, the individual barriers to housing experienced by tenants in receipt of social assistance are, in many cases, linked to the broader societal issues of inadequate income levels and poverty.

The Commission heard that the eligibility criteria for some of these programs make them inaccessible to people on disability pensions or social assistance. MMAH noted that some service managers allow or disallow social assistance recipients and social housing tenants from accessing rent bank assistance because they already benefit from other programs.

Protecting the human rights of vulnerable Ontarians requires a radically different response to the issues of discrimination identified in this report, and the reports of numerous international bodies. We must all bring housing human rights into our homes, apartment buildings, property management offices, government offices, tribunals and commissions, and most importantly, into our collective awareness. This framework suggests concrete action to address the human rights issues identified in the consultation and in numerous reports on housing.

The Commission’s preliminary findings of the inquiry into assaults on Asian Canadian anglers, released in December 2007, made note of this submission: Last August, I and my friend, who is of Chinese origin, were fishing near the channel here in the publicly owned land, we were chased away by the local residents...When I told them we were on public property [he] threatened to push us into the lake and said, “if you don’t leave now you will end up in the water.” We left because we didn’t want to get into trouble.

According to York Regional Police, the Ontario Provincial Police, fishing associations and other community organizations, there were far fewer formal reports of incidents involving harassment or assault of Asian Canadian anglers since the autumn of 2007 than there had been the previous year. The following incidents were reported to police during the 2008/2009 fishing season:

The progress of the commitments is contained in a chart in Appendix C. In reporting on the progress of each organization’s commitments, the Commission considered the following questions:

Overall, since the Inquiry began in November 2007, the Commission has seen an increase in dialogue about hate activity and awareness of racial profiling around the issue of assaults against Asian Canadian anglers. The Commission has also seen a heightened response to this issue by many organizations. Perhaps in part due to these efforts, the number of reported assaults and incidents involving Asian Canadian anglers has decreased substantially this year.

Dial 911 Emergency for Police, Fire, Ambulance Ontario Provincial Police www.opp.ca Tel: 1-888-310-1122 Crime stoppers www.ontariocrimestoppers.com 1-800-222-8477 African Canadian Legal Clinic www.aclc.net Tel: 416-214-4747 Toll Free: 1-888-377-0033 Anti-Black Hate Crime Tool Kit available

1. Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Are the initiatives completed? If they are longer term, are they in development? The initiatives are completed. Has the organization committed time, resources and money to the issue?

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. They

1. Introduction 1.1. The Code context The Code states that it is public policy in Ontario to recognize the inherent dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination. The provisions of the Code are aimed at creating a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person, so that each person feels a part of the community and feels able to contribute to the community.

6. Collection and analysis of numerical data It is a common misperception that the Code prohibits the collection and analysis of data identifying people based on race and other Code grounds. Many individuals, organizations and institutions mistakenly believe that collecting this data is automatically antithetical to human rights.

There are many tools available to assist employers in engaging in employment systems reviews to identify systemic barriers to racialized persons as well as others identified by Code grounds such as women and employees with disabilities.

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

On May 14, 2010, Ontario’s Divisional Court issued a decision on a case called Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Christian Horizons. The Divisional Court’s ruling was on the appeal of a 2008 decision made by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. In that decision, the Tribunal found that Christian Horizons infringed the rights of an employee who was in a same sex relationship.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Ontario Ministry of Education have finalized a settlement of a human rights complaint initiated by the Commission against the Ministry and the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) in July 2005. A settlement was reached separately with the TDSB in November 2005.