Archive

1. Defining Discrimination The Code provides that every person has the right to be treated equally without discrimination because of family status. The purpose of anti-discrimination laws is to prevent the violation of human dignity and freedom through the imposition of disadvantage, stereotyping, or political or social prejudice. In many cases, differential treatment because of family status will clearly be discriminatory.

The duty to accommodate will only arise where a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of family status has been demonstrated, as discussed above. Generally, the duty to accommodate will only become an issue in cases where rules, policies, practices, or institutional structures, assumptions or culture are perpetuating or leading to the disadvantage of persons identified by a particular family status.

The ultimate responsibility for a healthy and inclusive environment rests with employers, landlords, unions, vocational and professional organizations, service providers, and other organizations and institutions covered by the Code. There is an obligation to ensure that environments are free from discrimination and harassment. It is not acceptable from a human rights perspective to choose to remain unaware of the potential existence of discrimination or harassment, or to ignore or fail to act to address human rights matters, whether or not a complaint has been made.

Organizations and workplaces can take a number of steps to prevent and appropriately address human rights complaints. Important elements of an organization’s strategy to address human rights issues related to family status include:

To a significant degree, the workplace is still built on the assumption that families are composed in a ‘traditional’ fashion, of two married heterosexual parents, one of whom is providing full-time caregiving for children, aging relatives, and other family members as necessary. Work schedules, policies and benefits all too often reflect the assumption that employees do not have substantial caregiving obligations. The corollary to this assumption is the belief that workers who do have substantial caregiving obligations are in some way inferior and undesirable employees.

Section 2 of the Code prohibits discrimination in housing based on family status. This right applies to renting, being evicted, building rules and regulations, repairs, harassment, and use of services and facilities.

Section 1 of the Code prohibits discrimination on the basis of family status in services, goods and facilities. This includes, but is not limited to, educational institutions, hospitals, public transit services, social services, public places like malls and parks, and stores and restaurants.

For more information about the Ontario Human Rights Commission or this policy statement, please call 1-800-387-9080 (toll free) or in Toronto (416) 326-9511 (TTY: (416) 314-6526 (local) and 1-800-308-5561 (toll free), during regular office hours from Monday to Friday. You can also visit our website at http://www.ohrc.on.ca.  

During the later part of 2005 and early 2006, the OHRC approached the TPS to include specific public interest remedies as part of the proposed settlement of a number of human rights complaints against the TPS. Specific remedies were proposed covering areas of concern including: policies and procedures; training; human resources; monitoring and accountability and public education.

Overall Change Objectives The identification and elimination of any discrimination that may exist in employment policies of the Toronto Police Services Board (“TPSB”) and the practices of the Toronto Police Service (“TPS”) that may be contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code. The identification and elimination of any discrimination that may exist in the provision of policing services by the TPS to the residents of the City of Toronto that may be contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code.

In 2006, Bill 107 – The Human Rights Code Amendment Act set the stage for a major transformation of Ontario’s human rights system. This legislation, which comes into effect on June 30, 2008, will lead to fundamental changes in the way the Ontario Human Rights Commission operates.

Marketing awareness with Seneca College One of the challenges of transforming Ontario’s human rights system is to let Ontarians know about the changes. The Commission turned to the artists of tomorrow to help create a new vision of the changing system. For the third year in a row, the Commission teamed up with students and faculty from Seneca College’s graphic design program at York University to develop human rights awareness campaigns. This year’s goal was to develop concepts that would effectively communicate the transformation of the human rights system.

Family status rights: spreading the word In May 2007, the Commission released the results of its groundbreaking initiative on discrimination based on family status, and became the first jurisdiction in Canada to examine the human rights implications of barriers faced by families who are caring for children, aging parents or relatives, and family members with disabilities.

Transit accessibility: calling all stops In July 2007, Lepofsky v. Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the TTC’s failure to ensure announcements of all stops on buses and streetcars violated the human rights of persons with disabilities, particularly riders with visual impairments.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission provides information to tens of thousands of Ontarians each year, helping individuals and organizations prevent or resolve human rights concerns. Public contact with the Commission Between April 1, 2007 and March 31, 2008, the Commission dealt with:

The Commission’s litigation of cases before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and at higher courts has been instrumental in representing the public interest, enforcing the Code, promoting the Commission’s policies, negotiating, obtaining and enforcing strong public interest remedies, and setting precedents that help to advance human rights jurisprudence in Ontario, across Canada and internationally.

Commission settlements Commission-initiated complaint against the Ministry of Education A settlement between the Commission and the Ontario Ministry of Education will promote school safety while ensuring that all students, including students with disabilities and racialized students, are given the opportunity to reach their full potential.

Table 1: New Complaints Filed by Social Area and Grounds Cited (Total = 3,492)

 

The Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) has long been concerned about the significant barriers that persons with disabilities face when attempting to access transportation services.

In Fall 2007, the Commission contacted transit providers to inform them about these recent developments, request information about current stop announcement practices, and to recommend that they take steps to avoid complaints and improve accessibility by developing plans to quickly implement stop announcements.

The Hate Crimes Community Working Group Report and Initiatives in Schools The Hate Crimes Community Working Group Report

Over the fall and winter of 2007-2008, the Commission communicated with 41 transit providers.