Archive

The last two decades have seen rapid change in Canadian families, with a trend towards increasing diversity of family structures. The “traditional” family consisting of a father in the paid labour force, married to a woman who is a full-time caregiver for their children, is only one of a wide variety of family types. Some family forms are frequently overlooked. For example, the families formed by gays, lesbians and bisexuals are sometimes not recognized to be families at all.

[24]

Protection against discrimination on the basis of family status is relatively new in Canada. Provisions prohibiting discrimination on the basis of family status were added to a number of human rights statutes in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[28] states that ”Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection”. Article 16 further states that “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”.

Protection against discrimination on the basis of family status was added to the Code in 1982, following the recommendations made in the 1977 report on the Code’s mandate, Life Together.[40] Initially, the Code contained an exception permitting residential buildings or parts of residential buildings to be designated as adult only.

It is important to take into account the ways in which parents and children are affected by their membership in other historically disadvantaged groups. Individuals may be subjected to discrimination based on more than one Code ground, and these grounds may “intersect”, producing unique experiences of disadvantage and discrimination.

Employment and family often entail competing responsibilities: spouses or partners fall sick, daycare arrangements fall through, an aging parent needs help in making a transition to assisted living arrangements. For many workers, daily life involves a complicated juggling act between the demands, deadlines and responsibilities of the workplace, and the needs of their families.

The ground of family status was added to the Code in 1982. Until 1986, the Code contained an exception permitting residential buildings or parts of residential buildings to be designated as adult only. Unlike in the areas of employment and services, there has been significant litigation regarding family status issues in the area of housing, particularly in the Ontario context.

Section 1 of the Code prohibits discrimination based on family status in the social areas of services, goods and facilities. This is an extremely broad social area, covering everything from corner stores and shopping malls, to education, health services and public transit. The issues are therefore also extremely diverse. However, very little attention has been paid to these issues.

The Commission regards this Discussion Paper as the first step in addressing human rights and family status. It is the Commission’s intent to develop a policy statement on discrimination on the basis of family status. This policy will cover all social areas, and will consider such issues as universal design, systemic barriers to persons identified by family status, the duty to accommodate needs related to family status, bona fide requirements, and the effects of intersecting grounds of discrimination.

Prima facie Case of Discrimination The phrase ‘prima facie case of discrimination’ is often used in human rights cases. The Supreme Court of Canada has described the test for such a case as follows:

Municipalities are urged to develop their own plan of action in keeping with these ten Common Commitments addressing three areas of municipal responsibility:

Municipalities wishing to join the Coalition are invited to sign this model declaration. Given that: 1. The Canadian Commission for UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) is calling on municipalities to join a Canadian Coalition of Municipalities Against Racism and Discrimination and be part of UNESCO’s international coalition launched in 2004; and

Our international, national and provincial / territorial framework for human rights obligations in Canada provides a solid foundation for a Canadian Coalition of Municipalities Against Racism and Discrimination.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) is an independent, arm's length agency of the provincial government. Canada’s oldest commission, it was established in 1961 to protect, promote, and advance human rights, as set out in Ontario’s Human Rights Code (the “Code”). The Commission has broad functions and powers under the Code and acts independently on behalf of the public interest.

A. United States The Harvard Civil Rights Project Report The most comprehensive national report on zero tolerance and disciplinary policies in the U.S.

School boards in Ontario do not collect statistics on the race of the students who are suspended and expelled and there are no plans to do so.

Nearly all the interviewees identified discrimination – direct and systemic – as the main reason why the application of discipline in schools has a disproportionate impact on racial minority students and students with disabilities. Some interviewees also pointed out that there are multiple and intersecting grounds of discrimination, including race, disability, poverty and immigrant/refugee status. A. General Perceptions 1. Black Students Many Black students who are suspended or expelled believe that it is because of discrimination:

Many interviewees believe that the increased suspension and expulsion of students are having a broad, negative impact on the student, his or her family, the community and society-at-large. The most commonly identified elements are negative psychological impact, loss of education, higher drop-out rates and increased criminalization and anti-social behaviour.

The interviewees made a number of recommendations about how to improve the current framework established by the Safe Schools Act or alternatives which would reduce or eliminate the (perceived) disproportionate impact on racial minority students and students with disabilities. The main recommendations, with some further explanation where necessary, are:

September 1, 2003 will mark the second anniversary of the enactment of the Safe Schools Act in Ontario. Over the past twenty-two months, school boards have been amending and adopting policies and procedures governing the application of discipline in schools, the number of suspensions and expulsions has increased, and there has been growing concern over the human rights implications of the new regime.

The Commission’s mandate is set out in the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”), the Ontario law that prohibits discrimination and harassment in several areas including employment, housing and services. The purpose of the Code is explained in its Preamble and is, in essence, to achieve a society that provides equal rights and opportunities to all its citizens in which there exists a climate of mutual respect and understanding for the dignity and worth of each person.

While many of the existing definitions of racial profiling, primarily originating in the United States, focus on law enforcement, the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Terms of Reference define racial profiling more broadly to include any action undertaken for reasons of safety, security or public protection that relies on stereotypes about race, colour, ethnicity, ancestry, religion, or place of origin rather than on reasonable suspicion, to single out an individual for greater scrutiny or different treatment.

The Commission has consistently stated that the purpose of its racial profiling inquiry is not to prove or disprove the existence of racial profiling. It is the Commission’s view that previous inquiries have considered this and have found that it does occur. Moreover, as discussed above, racial profiling is a form of racial stereotyping. As racial stereotyping and discrimination exists in society, it also exists in institutions such as law enforcement agencies, the education system, the criminal justice system etc., which are a microcosm of broader society.