Archive

This document explains the legal backdrop for the Commission’s Policy Framework. It is divided into two main sections. The first provides an overview and summary of key legal principles from some significant legal decisions. This section aims to help readers understand the relevant legal background when seeking to conciliate or otherwise reconcile competing rights claims. The second part of the document surveys the leading cases that deal with competing rights. It also provides examples of situations where the leading cases, and the key principles from them, have been applied by courts and tribunals. It is divided by the types of rights conflicts that most commonly arise. The cases are discussed in some detail as the specific factual context of each case is so important to the rights reconciliation process.

ISSUE: Input on the International Labour Organization (ILO) Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention 111[1] for Canada’s 2011 Article 22 Report as it pertains to the mandate of the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC). RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

In 2004-2005, the Commission received 100 complaints relating to discrimination in housing.[51] While this number amounts to only about 4 percent of the total complaints received by the Commission during this time period, the complaints that have been filed frequently raise significant systemic issues, issues that potentially affect large numbers of people besides the actual complainant.

All jurisdictions in Canada provide for some protection from discrimination in the social area of housing.[53] Harassment is not explicitly addressed in all cases,[54] but may be dealt with as a form of discrimination.

The international community has long recognized that housing is a human right worthy of protection.

Status and Purpose of the Code The Code is quasi-constitutional legislation which has primacy over all other legislation in Ontario, unless the other legislation specifically states that it applies despite the Code.[77] This means that if another piece of legislation contains a provision which conflicts with or contravenes the Code, the Code will prevail.

Discrimination in rental housing can take various forms. One does not have to show that the discrimination was deliberate, malicious or even intentional. Even actions that are unintended or comments that are “only a joke”, are prohibited if they are offensive and discriminatory based on a ground in the Code.

Under the Code, housing providers have a duty to accommodate the Code-related needs of tenants, to ensure that the housing they supply is designed to be inclusive of persons identified by Code grounds, and to take steps to remove any barriers that may exist, unless to do so would cause undue hardship. Costs will amount to undue hardship if they are quantifiable, shown to be related to the accommodation, and so substantial that they would alter the essential nature of the enterprise or so significant that they would substantially affect its viability.

The Code protects against discrimination in rental housing on the following grounds:

Those seeking rental housing who are in receipt of public assistance, as well as other Code-identified individuals with low incomes, have been particularly affected by the application of minimum income criteria. Many landlords apply a standard guideline that a tenant applicant should be spending no more than 25-35 percent of his or her income on rent. Those who fall short of this ratio are rejected.

Vulnerable groups protected by human rights legislation are more likely to experience low social and economic status or condition.[218] Poverty is linked inextricably with inequality, particularly for women (especially lone mothers and elderly women), Aboriginal persons, racialized groups and persons with disabilities.

It is clear from the issues raised by this Paper that there is a need for further examination of human rights issues that arise in the area of rental housing. Given the importance of adequate housing to an individual’s overall quality of life and ability to participate meaningfully in society, the time to conduct this examination is now.

Affordability is defined by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as “housing that costs less than 30 percent of total before-tax household income.”[257]

Barbara Hall – Appointed November 2005 Barbara Hall, Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and former Mayor of Toronto, has served for more than 40 years as a community worker, lawyer, municipal politician and champion of a grassroots approach to community-building.

The Honourable Steve Peters Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario Room 180 Legislative Building Queen’s Park Toronto, ON M7A 1A2 Dear Mr. Speaker: Under Section 31.6 (2) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Ontario Human Rights Commission is required to submit a report on the Commission’s activities for the previous fiscal period by June 30th of each year, to be tabled in the Legislature.

Fifty years ago, the newly-created Ontario Human Rights Commission knew what it was up against. Discrimination was as blatant as the signs that advised “No Jews or Blacks need apply.” But it was clear to the government of the day that dealing with discrimination needed more than just laws. The Commission’s first Director, Daniel G. Hill, said the objective was “to challenge popular myths and stereotypes about people” and described human rights legislation as “the skilful blending of educational and legal techniques in the pursuit of social justice.”

On March 28, 2011, the Attorney General for Ontario, the Hon. Chris Bentley spoke in the Ontario Legislature to mark the 50th anniversary of the OHRC.

A high school student gets a failing grade on her essay because she refused her teacher’s sexual advances. A factory worker repeatedly turns down her foreman’s requests for a date, and suddenly sees her work hours reduced. A single mother gets evicted because she won’t have sex with her landlord.

Since disability was added to the Human Rights Code in 1981, it has become the ground most often cited in human rights complaints in Ontario. The OHRC has done much work in this area, but primarily on physical disability. In the past, there were few official complaints based on mental health, but we knew that they were out there. Now, as mental health issues emerge from the shadows and people feel more empowered to tell their stories, we’ve worked to better understand the discrimination that mental illness creates.

Housing in the news When discussing a bill to prohibit discrimination in housing, Liberal leader John Wintermeyer said the bill didn’t go far enough, because it only applied to rental housing with more than six units. “We are in no way interfering with the rights of individuals to choose their own friends and operate their own homes as they see fit,” said Premier Leslie Frost. Reginal Gisborn (CCF) hoped that this was only the beginning in promoting equal opportunity in housing accommodation.

We often refer to our retirement years as our “golden” years. But there is nothing golden for many older Ontarians who are afraid of the people they rely on for care, who are not sure if their pension cheques will cover their next month’s rent, or who don’t have any way to complain when human rights issues arise at their retirement home.

All Ontarians should enjoy the rights to inclusion, dignity and personal choices in their daily lives. While most of us take the ability to make these choices for granted, there are still some people who do not enjoy the level of rights that most of us do. Simple rights like being able to decide what clothing to wear or what to have for lunch are often not available to some of the most vulnerable members of our society – people with developmental disabilities. An initiative is underway to change this.

On March 12, 2010, Canada ratified the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Much more than “just another treaty,” the Convention is, essentially, Canada’s promise to protect, promote and advance the rights of people with disabilities. An important part of the Convention covers the right to vote. Article 29 states: States Parties shall guarantee to persons with disabilities political rights and the opportunity to enjoy them on an equal basis with others, and shall undertake:

As the government moves forward with implementing the AODA, we continue to advocate for the Act and accompanying standards to meet the vision and the requirements of the Ontario Human Rights Code. This included commenting on Charles Beer’s 2010 report, Creating a Path Forward – Report of the Independent Review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) 2005.