Archive

By Date, Degree, and Format of Compliance (based on information received by end March, 2008)

Stop Announcement practices and commitments from Ontario public transit providers.

On December 14, 2007, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) released its Preliminary Findings of the Inquiry Into Assaults on Asian Canadian Anglers. The goal of the Inquiry was to learn more about the nature of verbal and physical assaults reported by Asian Canadian anglers that occurred in regions of southern and eastern Ontario in the summer and fall of 2007. Additional goals were to:

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

Why do we need a Coalition? Canada along with its provinces and territories has an exceptional system of human rights laws and ratified international treaties. Nevertheless, as in other parts of the world, racism and discrimination continue to raise barriers against the development of individuals and groups. Racism and discrimination divide communities, pose a serious threat to peaceful coexistence and exchange among and within communities, imperil democratic and participatory citizenship, and entrench and aggravate inequalities within society.

Remaking the Human Rights System in Ontario The Commission has begun a process of transformation that will fundamentally alter the way it works. This will be one of the biggest changes at the Commission since its inception in 1961.

Public Contact with the Commission As the first point of contact for members of the public, the Commission’s inquiry service delivers important public education about human rights and responsibilities under the Code, and provides information about the Commission’s policies and guidelines, as well as relevant external resources. The Commission is often able to assist individuals and organizations to prevent or resolve problems so that a complaint is not necessary. In 2006-07:

List of Commissioners Barbara Hall Chief Commissioner

Table 1: New Complaints Filed by Social Area and Grounds Cited (Total = 2337)

The roles that we play as family members are central to our lives. We value our ability to provide care and support – emotional, social, physical, and financial – to our family members when they need it, and rely on our families to provide the same for us when necessary.

Each individual’s experience of his or her family status is profoundly influenced by other aspects of their identify, such as gender, sexual orientation, age, race, marital status, or disability: this was a major theme of the submissions the Commission received. For example, the experience of an aging parent of a child with a disability will differ from that of an Aboriginal single mother in search of housing. A heterosexual married mother seeking career advancement will experience different barriers than a lesbian couple dealing with their children’s schooling.

1. The Current Code Definition The Code includes two grounds that provide protections for persons in relationships: marital status and family status. “Marital status” is defined in section 10 of the Code as “the status of being married, single, widowed, divorced or separated and includes the status of living with a person in a conjugal relationship outside marriage”, including both same-sex and opposite sex relationships. “Family status” is defined as “the status of being in a parent and child relationship.”

What are the lessons we can learn? How can we move towards a different world: one where there is public support for child rearing and care giving; one where both men and women are given equal roles and responsibilities; one where care giving requirements don’t fall on people who are already struggling? CAW Canada

1. Introduction Canada, as a signatory to a number of international human rights instruments, has recognized that adequate housing is a fundamental human right.

1. Context A number of submissions received by the Commission identified barriers for families in the receipt of services. The Commission heard concerns about a broad range of services, including large public services like transportation, education and health, as well as small private services.

The ground of family status raises wide-ranging and complex issues. It is clear from this consultation that individuals with caregiving responsibilities face a range of systemic barriers to full participation in employment, housing and services. The Commission heard that families cannot, on their own, resolve all of these barriers. Addressing them will require a coordinated approach from government, employers, housing providers, service providers, and the Commission itself.

Adoption Council of Ontario Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) African Canadian Legal Clinic ARCH A Legal Resource Centre for Persons with Disabilities Association of Law Officers of the Crown (ALOC) Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Canadian Pensioners’ Concerned CANGRANDS CARP – Canada’s Association for the Fifty-Plus CAW Canada Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation (CERA) Centre for Families, Work, and Well-Being (CFWW) Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Righ

Accessibility audit of select restaurant chains in Ontario Prepared by Betty Dion Enterprises Ltd

Restaurant audit instrument of select accessiblity indicators The Audit Instrument of Select Accessibility Indicators was developed Betty Dion Enterprises Ltd for the accessibility audit of select restaurant chains in Ontario undertaken for the Ontario Human Rights Commission. It can also be used directly by restaurants as an indicator to assist them in reviewing the accessibility of their facilities and services.

Much of the passionate and often heated debate over the recent legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada is emblematic of the difficulties that accompany the balancing of conflicting rights. Bill C-38 raised concerns about how to best ensure a balance between freedom of religion and sexuality equality rights. Opponents of same-sex marriage worried that freedom of religion would be trumped by sexuality equality rights, and they argued for stronger legislative guarantees that would protect the beliefs and practices of religious officials and institutions.

Many disputes in which there appears to be a conflict of rights will be revealed, upon closer examination, to be situations in which the resolution of the dispute is not contingent upon the complex process of balancing. Given the difficulties associated with the balancing process, it is imperative that only actual conflicts of rights are approached as balancing tasks. This section of the paper will briefly outline factors for assessing the extent to which competing rights are the real issue at stake.

This section of the paper surveys the balancing tools found in the Code and relevant case law. Documents such as Commission briefing notes and Policy Papers provide invaluable commentary on these tools and their insights are woven into the following discussion. The goal of this section is to identify the resources for balancing conflicting rights that will be utilized in the scenarios discussed in Section IV.

A number of conflicting rights scenarios and their potential resolutions have been presented throughout this paper in order to illustrate specific balancing tools. This section of the paper will utilize each of the tools noted above by working through one timely example of conflicting rights: same-sex marriage and civil marriage commissioners. This example has been chosen not only for its currency, but also because it encompasses both the service and employment contexts.

This scenario highlights the different resolutions that principled and pragmatic balancing may offer. It also illustrates the overlap of these two approaches and the wide range of balancing tools that may be employed in any given situation. The best approach appears to be one that mixes and matches these two styles of balancing. Indeed, it is crucial that these two approaches compliment and inform each other. For that reason, these approaches should not be understood as binary opposites.